DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3-17 are pending.
This action is Final.
Claim Interpretation
No claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
MPEP 2111.04 II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.”
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3(or 13) be found allowable, claim 13 (or 3) will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 11-12, 14-17 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.
Regarding claims 11, 14, 16, the limitations “further comprising removing, by the processor, a signal portion corresponding to the first biological signal from the processing result” (similar features in the other claims) are rejected for being new matter. It appears this feature is based off the passage from PGPub [0058] “Moreover, the signal separation inverse transformer 36 of the noise reduction processor 39 updates the potential signal E2 by removing a signal portion corresponding to the potential signal E1 from the potential signal E2 (Step S107).”. However, based on the independent claims, the noise reduction process results in a processing result being stored, that is the result of the noise reduction process itself. The scope now being claimed appears to process this stored value which is scope not adequately supported by the disclosure as filed, but a potential second biological signal in the noise reduction process removes such first signal from it, which may be based on a prior stored processing result. It appears that this aspect is only associated with the contingent features of the noise being higher than the threshold, in which case stored data is combined with first data, processed and removed to generate a next or updated result, but the stored result is not simply removing potential portion as claimed based on the disclosure as filed and must be considered new matter for such broad scope being claimed. As such, one of skill in the art would not have recognized applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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, 3-17 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.
Claim 1 and 13 are presented in the form of:
“a processor coupled to the sensor and the memory data storage device, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform a noise reduction process to generate a second biological signal on a basis of the first biological signal;
cause a processing result of the noise reduction process to be stored in the memory data storage device;
calculate a degree to which noise corresponding to second biological information is included in the first biological signal to account for superposition of the second biological information upon the first biological information of interest;
perform the noise reduction process using the processing result stored in the memory data storage device on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is greater than a predetermined value; and
perform the noise reduction process on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is less than the predetermined value.” (emphasis added),
which renders the claim indefinite. The claimed features are functions of a processor structured to perform functions, where some functions are contingent (in a case where). The functions include perform, cause, calculate, perform (contingent), and perform (contingent). The issue lies in the contingent steps, as these refer to performing the noise reduction process on the basis of the first biological signal. As claimed, it appears the first perform is being further limited in each “a case”, which makes it unclear if the first perform is being modified or if these are further performed noise reduction processes. For example, it is not clear how the same result is stored and then reduced in the same noise reduction process. It seems more likely that there is a missing time aspect to the claimed functions, where processing is performed for time segments after the stored processing result occurs, not with or simultaneously as appears to be set forth in the claims. For these reasons the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear which renders the claim indefinite. The following amendments would be sufficient:
“a processor coupled to the sensor and the memory data storage device, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform at least a first[[a]] noise reduction process to generate a second biological signal on a basis of the first biological signal;
cause a processing result of the at least first noise reduction process to be stored in the memory data storage device;
calculate a degree to which noise corresponding to second biological information is included in the first biological signal for a portion of time to account for superposition of the second biological information upon the first biological information of interest;
perform [[the]]a second noise reduction process using the processing result stored in the memory data storage device on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is greater than a predetermined value; and
perform the second noise reduction process on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is less than the predetermined value.”
Claim 10 is amended into the form of:
“A measurement method, comprising:
generating, by a sensor coupled to a processor, a first biological signal that is based on first biological information;
performing, by the processor, a noise reduction process to generate a second biological signal on a basis of the first biological signal;
causing, by the processor, a processing result of the noise reduction process to be stored in a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the noise reduction process is performed using the stored processing result on the basis of the first biological signal;
calculating a degree to which noise corresponding to second biological information is included in the first biological signal, wherein the calculating comprises accounting for superposition of the second biological information upon the first biological information of interest;
performing the noise reduction process using the processing result stored in the memory on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is greater than a predetermined value; and
performing the noise reduction process on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is less than the predetermined value”,
which renders the claim indefinite. The claimed features are steps performed via processor structures, where some functions are contingent (in a case where). The steps include generate sensor data by a sensor, and processor completed functions including performing and causing, and further steps of calculating, performing (contingent), and performing (contingent). The issue lies in the performing (including contingent steps) and in the causing step, as these refer to performing the noise reduction process on the basis of the first biological signal and then on the basis of the stored result, and then contingently on the basis of noise. The method claims are different in interpretation than the product claims as explained above. In this case, it is not clear what steps are actually being performed and what the results are. It appears based on the disclosure that there is more than one noise reduction that should be claimed in the method, but each step refers to the same noise reduction process, and in the case of performing and then using stored results does not make sense how the steps can be completed simultaneously. For example, it is not clear how the same result is stored and then reduced in the same noise reduction process. It seems more likely that there is a missing time aspect to the claimed functions, where processing is performed for time segments after the stored processing result occurs, not with or simultaneously as appears to be set forth in the claims. Additionally, it appears that the requirement of using the stored value precludes one of the contingent steps altogether, and the other is not required to occur based on noise threshold case not being met. For these reasons the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear which renders the claim indefinite. As method claims are different in interpretation than the product claims as explained above, the examiner does not have any suggested language to overcome the rejection of the claims.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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, 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1
perform a noise reduction process to generate a second biological signal on a basis of the first biological signal (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
calculate a degree to which noise corresponding to second biological information is included in the first biological signal to account for superposition of the second biological information upon the first biological information of interest (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
perform the noise reduction process using the processing result stored in the memory data storage device on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is greater than a predetermined value (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
perform the noise reduction process on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is less than the predetermined value (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
Claim 10
performing a noise reduction process to generate a second biological signal on a basis of the first biological signal; wherein the noise reduction process is performed using the stored processing result on the basis of the first biological signal (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
calculating a degree to which noise corresponding to second biological information is included in the first biological signal, wherein the calculating comprises accounting for superposition of the second biological information upon the first biological information of interest (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
performing the noise reduction process using the processing result stored in the memory on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is greater than a predetermined value (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
performing the noise reduction process on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the degree of noise is less than the predetermined value (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
Claim 13
perform a noise reduction process to generate a second biological signal on a basis of the first biological signal (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
calculate a degree to which noise corresponding to second biological information is included in the first biological signal to account for superposition of the second biological information upon the first biological information of interest (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
perform the noise reduction process using the processing result stored in the memory data storage device on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the noise degree is greater than a predetermined value (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
perform the noise reduction process on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the noise degree is less than the predetermined value (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
wherein to perform the noise reduction process…configured to: generate a first matrix by separating the first biological signal into a plurality of signals; perform a matrix separation process to separate the first matrix into a second matrix and a third matrix, the second matrix including a component less changeable in a time-axis direction, and the third matrix including a component discrete in the time-axis direction; and generate the second biological signal on a basis of the second matrix (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
Claim 1:
a sensor configured to generate a first biological signal that is based on first biological information (insignificant extra solution activities related to data gathering)
a processor coupled to the sensor and the memory data storage device, wherein the processor is configured to (computer structures used as a tool for implementation)
a memory data storage device, cause a processing result of the noise reduction process to be stored in the memory data storage device (insignificant extra solution activities related to data storage in computer structures used as a tool)
Claim 10
generating, by a sensor coupled to a processor, a first biological signal that is based on first biological information (insignificant extra solution activities related to data gathering)
performing by the processor (computer structures used as a tool for implementation)
causing, by the processor, a processing result of the noise reduction process to be stored in a memory coupled to the processor (insignificant extra solution activities related to data storage in computer structures used as a tool)
Claim 13
a sensor configured to generate a first biological signal that is based on first biological information (insignificant extra solution activities related to data gathering)
a processor coupled to the sensor and the memory data storage device, wherein the processor is configured to (computer structures used as a tool for implementation)
a memory data storage device; cause a processing result of the noise reduction process to be stored in the memory data storage device (insignificant extra solution activities related to data storage in computer structures used as a tool)
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that is not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified in step 2A above. Such limitations related to the generation of signals are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the product/method as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm. The sensors are merely generic off the shelf sensors. The computer structures cited above are claimed as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. It is noted that removing muscle induced chewing noises from biological signals including EEGs are known from US 5626145, US 2008/0161712, US 2020/0261689, US 2021/0321929, US 2022/0047204. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are directed to further exceptions related to the data processing (A more specific abstraction is still an abstraction). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to the claims, and specification filed 4/22/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim interpretations have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; no claims are invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive as further consideration resulted in the updated rejections necessitated by amendment to the claims. The rejections are respectfully maintained as presented above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the application as filed contains a technical problem and solution which amounts to a practical application (improvement to technology). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The scope of the claims are broader than the concepts being cited to in PGPub paragraphs 28-30 to form an improvement to a specific technology as the claims are not drawn to myoelectric noises in EEG signals, but to any second signals within a measured signal. However, should such scope be claimed, there is still an issue into the improvement being the exception itself. It is noted that removing muscle induced chewing noises from biological signals including EEGs are known from US 5626145, US 2008/0161712, US 2020/0261689, US 2021/0321929, US 2022/0047204. In generalized terms, the invention is to “cleaning” a measured signal, but the clean signal is the result, there is no further use of the signal as claimed, which would preempt any use of the cleaned signal cleaned by this claimed process. Novelty does not equate to patent eligibility without an exception being a practical application or significantly more than the claimed exception. For example, nothing is done with the data to improve any diagnostic aspect, but the data is cleaned in a different way from the art, but nothing indicates that this cleaned method is improved and the improvement is in the exception itself as claimed. This is different from Diehr, which used such algorithmic to impact a change, here the data processed itself is the alleged improvement. For these reasons, the examiner is not persuaded that the claims, as set forth for the scope claimed, reflect the alleged improvement, and that the alleged improvement is to the exception itself. The rejections are respectfully maintained as presented above to account for the amendments to the claims.
MPEP 2106:
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
“After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., “thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim “as a whole,” in other words, the claim should be evaluated “as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.” When performing this evaluation, examiners should be “careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims” by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.”
“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.”
“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.”
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive for the arguments related to the form of the claims presented; the rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
No prior art rejections have been applied, but the claims are not in condition for allowance due to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (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 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights