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 .
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “An embodiment of the present disclosure provides,” etc.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as
a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong
test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for “means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient
structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the
claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without
reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted
under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an
Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or
"step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations 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 limitations are:
"a collector”, “a calculator” and “a comparator” in claims 1, 9, and 15
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations
recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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.
Claims 1-15 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.
The examiner was unable to find language in the specification that provided a nexus between
the functions of "a collector”, “a calculator” and “a comparator " in claims 1, 9, and 15, to their respective components. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
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 1-15 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 limitations “a collector”, “a calculator” and “a comparator” in claims 1, 9, and 15 each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. To elaborate, the claim limitations do not recite association between any structure and the respective functions for each of these claimed components in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35
U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure,
material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any
new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or
inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function
so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the
claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the
corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links
or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any
new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 15 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-8 recite an apparatus with limitations that, under broadest reasonable
interpretation, are not required to contain any physical form. Additionally. Claim 15 recites a computer
readable medium, which encompasses signal per se, under broadest reasonable interpretation. Claims
9-15 recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture. However, it will be shown in the following steps, that claims 1-15 are nonetheless
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 9 states:
A method, performed by an exercise performance comparison device, of comparing exercise performance, the method comprising:
collecting, by a collector, workout data by communicating with each piece of fitness equipment used by users constituting a first group and users constituting a second group;
calculating, by a calculator, a fitness index of the users constituting the first group and a fitness index of the users constituting the second group, based on the collected workout data; and
comparing, by a comparator, exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics, based on the fitness index of the users constituting the first group and the fitness index of the users constituting the second group, wherein the fitness index comprises at least one of an exercise ability index and a workout record index.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes and/or
organizing human activity because each bolded component can practically be performed by the human
mind or with pen and paper. Nothing in the claims precludes the bold-font portions from practically
being performed in the mind. For example, "comparing, by a comparator, exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics " in the context of this claim encompasses a process of taking recorded data from one group of users and comparing it to recorded data from a second group of users. If a claim limitation, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of
generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" or "Organizing Human
Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 15 cover similar steps of collecting workout data and calculating a fitness index of a user to compare to other users. These claims fall under the same category of an abstract idea and follows the same rationale as claim 9.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract
idea embodied in the claims.
Dependent claims 7, 8, and 10-11 add additional elements to their parent claims which will be further
inspected in the following steps for a practical application to their abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception of "Mental Processes" or "Organizing Human Activity" is not integrated
into a practical application because the independent claims do not recite any additional limitations that
practically applies the abstract idea.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with
the additional elements in the independent claims. For instance, dependent claims 7, 8, and 10-11 add
additional elements of a "display" and a “smart gym” to their parent claims. Additionally, the dependent claims add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as claims 7 and 10 recitation of
"displaying, by a display, a variation in the fitness index of the users constituting the first group or the fitness index of the users constituting the second group, on a character representing each of the users constituting the first group or each of the users constituting the second group, during a preset period the second group use smart gyms in physically different location." adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to necessary data outputting, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Looking at the limitations 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 provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claims do not recite additional elements or activity but further narrow or define the abstract idea embodied in the claims and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to 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 independent claims contain no additional elements to apply an
exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, or generally link the abstract idea
to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, with respect to integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, amount to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the
abstract idea. These additional limitations amount to an additional elements that have been recognized
as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As previously noted, the claim recites an additional element of a display. As set forth below, Schwartz et al set forth a display for the same purpose As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, does not amount to significantly more.
Looking at the limitations 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 provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwartz et al (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0219059).
[Claim 1] Schwartz et al disclose an exercise performance comparison device comprising:
a collector configured to collect workout data by communicating with each piece of fitness equipment (Par. 0162: physiological indices for physical effort, fitness levels, as well as activity levels from exercise machines) used by users constituting a first group and users constituting a second group (Par. 0115-0118);
a calculator configured to calculate, based on the collected workout data, a fitness index of the users (Par. 0168) constituting the first group and a fitness index of the users constituting the second group; and
a comparator configured to compare exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics, based on the fitness index of the users constituting the first group and the fitness index of the users constituting the second group, wherein the fitness index comprises at least one of an exercise ability index and a workout record index (Par. 0050 and 0105-0107).
[Claim 2] Schwartz et al disclose the exercise performance comparison device of claim 1, wherein the fitness index further includes a body type index, the comparator is configured to compare the exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics based on a variation in a sum of the body type index of each of the users constituting the first group and the body type index of each of the users constituting the second group between a first time point and a second time point, and the body type index is calculated by summing at least some of a converted weight, converted muscle mass, a converted body fat percentage, and converted body balance information (Par. 0101: “analyzes workout routines, calculates statistics, generates charts, and produces trends of progress in terms of workout and physiological effects. As shown in FIG. 8, graphs can be generated for trends in the athlete's performance on specific exercises, overall changes in fitness levels such as cardio endurance and arm strength among others. The amount of calories burned during workouts as a function of time can also be graphed. These are mere examples of the types of analysis that can be generated when the PEMT data is uploaded. In the embodiment of FIG. 8, in addition to simple graphing and summary of performance and trending over time, the PEMT expert coach module 550 of the PEMT server is shown to make more advanced recommendations to produce a report that summarizes the current workout results in relation to goals and objectives of the exercise, comparison with related groups, and recommendations from exercise experts”).
[Claim 3] Schwartz et al disclose the exercise performance comparison device of claim 1, wherein the comparator is configured to compare the exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics, based on a variation in the exercise ability index of each of the users constituting the first group and the exercise ability index of each of the users constituting the second group between a first time point and a second time point, the exercise ability index includes a physical strength certification standard grade by age, the comparator is configured to compare a sum of variations in the physical strength certification standard grade by age of each of the users belonging to the first group with a sum of variations in the physical strength certification standard grade by age of each of the users belonging to the second group, and items of the physical strength certification standard include muscle strength and cardiorespiratory endurance (Par. 0115: “the class trainer 20 registers their class for competition by uploading information identifying the contest level or degree of difficulty of competition and events that their group wants to compete, the number of athletes in the group, and perhaps the age distribution of the class among other pertinent information. Other types of information the trainer could indicate include proficiency ratings for example A, B, C for skill events such as bike riding or treadmill running and equipment type among others”).
[Claim 4] Schwartz et al disclose the exercise performance comparison device of claim 1, wherein the comparator is configured to compare the exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics, based on a variation in the exercise ability index of each of the users constituting the first group and the exercise ability index of each of the users constituting the second group between a first time point and a second time point, and
the exercise ability index includes a PMWAI, and the PMWAI is a personal maximum muscle strength value reflecting an individual objectification index calculated based on the workout data of the users collected by the collector (Par. 0107).
[Claim 5] Schwartz et al disclose the exercise performance comparison device of claim 1, wherein the comparator is configured to compare the exercise performance between the first group and the second group, based on a sum of variations in a PMWAI percentile grade of each of the users constituting the first group and the users constituting the second group with respect to specific fitness equipment (Par. 0106-0107).
[Claim 6] Schwartz et al disclose the exercise performance comparison device of claim 1, wherein the workout record index is calculated as an achievement rate of a workout goal from a start date when the first group and the second group start competing to a competition date,
the workout goal includes an exercise load, and
the exercise load is set based on a target weight calculated based on a PMWAI for each user, and the PMWAI is a personal maximum muscle strength value reflecting an individual objectification index calculated based on the workout data of the users collected by the collector (Par. 0162-0164).
[Claim 7] Schwartz et al disclose the exercise performance comparison device of claim 1, wherein the users constituting the first group and the users constituting the second group use smart gyms in physically different locations (Par. 0107: “contests can be held between disparate health clubs or various organizations locally, or nationally, or even internationally”).
[Claim 8] Schwartz et al disclose the exercise performance comparison device of claim 1, further comprising:
a display configured to display a variation in the fitness index of the users constituting the first group or the fitness index of the users constituting the second group, on a character representing each of the users constituting the first group or each of the users constituting the second group, during a preset period (Par. 0106: “the summary of class results can be displayed via a screen projector 670 for all class members to see on a large projection screen 680 located in front of the exercise studio or small monitors located throughout the room. Graphical indicators can be generated in the reporting software and visually shown to allow the student to judge how they compare to the group either through some distinguishing icon on the general screen 680 or by comparing displayed values on their personal PEMT 180 with the class averages displayed on the common display 680”).
[Claim 9] Schwartz et al disclose a method, performed by an exercise performance comparison device, of comparing exercise performance, the method comprising:
collecting, by a collector, workout data by communicating with each piece of fitness equipment (Par. 0162: physiological indices for physical effort, fitness levels, as well as activity levels from exercise machines) used by users constituting a first group and users constituting a second group (Par. 0115-0118);
calculating, by a calculator, a fitness index of the users constituting the first group and a fitness index of the users (Par. 0168) constituting the second group, based on the collected workout data; and
comparing, by a comparator, exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics, based on the fitness index of the users constituting the first group and the fitness index of the users constituting the second group, wherein the fitness index comprises at least one of an exercise ability index and a workout record index (Par. 0050 and 0105-0107).
[Claim 10] Schwartz et al disclose the method of claim 9, further comprising: displaying, by a display, a variation in the fitness index of the users constituting the first group or the fitness index of the users constituting the second group, on a character representing each of the users constituting the first group or each of the users constituting the second group, during a preset period (Par. 0106: “the summary of class results can be displayed via a screen projector 670 for all class members to see on a large projection screen 680 located in front of the exercise studio or small monitors located throughout the room. Graphical indicators can be generated in the reporting software and visually shown to allow the student to judge how they compare to the group either through some distinguishing icon on the general screen 680 or by comparing displayed values on their personal PEMT 180 with the class averages displayed on the common display 680”).
[Claim 11] Schwartz et al disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the users constituting the first group and the users constituting the second group use smart gyms in physically different locations (Par. 0107: “contests can be held between disparate health clubs or various organizations locally, or nationally, or even internationally”).
[Claim 12] Schwartz et al disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the fitness index further includes a body type index, the method further comprising:
comparing, by the comparator, the exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics, based on a variation in a sum of the body type index of each of the users constituting the first group and the body type index of each of the users constituting the second group between a first time point and a second time point,
wherein the body type index is calculated by summing at least some of a converted weight, converted muscle mass, a converted body fat percentage, and converted body balance information (Par. 0101: “analyzes workout routines, calculates statistics, generates charts, and produces trends of progress in terms of workout and physiological effects. As shown in FIG. 8, graphs can be generated for trends in the athlete's performance on specific exercises, overall changes in fitness levels such as cardio endurance and arm strength among others. The amount of calories burned during workouts as a function of time can also be graphed. These are mere examples of the types of analysis that can be generated when the PEMT data is uploaded. In the embodiment of FIG. 8, in addition to simple graphing and summary of performance and trending over time, the PEMT expert coach module 550 of the PEMT server is shown to make more advanced recommendations to produce a report that summarizes the current workout results in relation to goals and objectives of the exercise, comparison with related groups, and recommendations from exercise experts”).
[Claim 13] Schwartz et al disclose the method of claim 9, further comprising:
comparing, by the comparator, the exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics, based on a variation in the exercise ability index of each of the users constituting the first group and the exercise ability index of each of the users constituting the second group between a first time point and a second time point,
wherein the exercise ability index includes a physical strength certification standard grade by age, comparing, by the comparator, a sum of variations in the physical strength certification standard grade by age of each of the users belonging to the first group with a sum of variations in the physical strength certification standard grade by age of each of the users belonging to the second group,
wherein items of the physical strength certification standard include muscle strength and cardiorespiratory endurance (Par. 0115: “the class trainer 20 registers their class for competition by uploading information identifying the contest level or degree of difficulty of competition and events that their group wants to compete, the number of athletes in the group, and perhaps the age distribution of the class among other pertinent information. Other types of information the trainer could indicate include proficiency ratings for example A, B, C for skill events such as bike riding or treadmill running and equipment type among others”).
[Claim 14] Schwartz et al disclose the method of claim 9, further comprising: comparing, by the comparator, the exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics, based on a variation in the exercise ability index of each of the users constituting the first group and the exercise ability index of each of the users constituting the second group between a first time point and a second time point, wherein the exercise ability index includes a PMWAI, and the PMWAI is a personal maximum muscle strength value reflecting an individual objectification index calculated based on the workout data of the users collected by the collector (Par. 0106-0107).
[Claim 15] Schwartz et al disclose a computer-readable recording medium storing commands for enabling a computing device to:
collect, by a collector, workout data by communicating with each piece of fitness equipment (Par. 0162: physiological indices for physical effort, fitness levels, as well as activity levels from exercise machines) used by users constituting a first group and users constituting a second group (Par. 0115-0118);
calculate, by a calculator, a fitness index of the users constituting the first group and a fitness index (Par. 0168) of the users constituting the second group, based on the collected workout data; and
compare, by a comparator, exercise performance between the first group and the second group with different physical strength characteristics, based on the fitness index of the users constituting the first group and the fitness index of the users constituting the second group,
wherein the fitness index comprises at least one of an exercise ability index and a workout record index (Par. 0050 and 0105-0107).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Paddock et al, Bongdu et al, Abecassis et al, Devine et al, and Winsper all disclose similar devices/ methods which calculate a fitness index or score and either makes a comparison to historical records or to other users in a system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784 12/23/2025