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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application filed 11/06/2024.
Claims 1-31 were canceled 11/06/2024.
Claims 32-51 were added 11/06/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 50 appears to depend on claim 49, however it is claiming a system rather than the controller claimed in claim 49. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 48 is directed to software as a “a configurable computer-implemented application” and appears to be directed to a computer program per se (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72). A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter (see: MPEP, Chapter 2106, Section I, “The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter”).
Claims 49 is directed to a controller that is a computer-readable medium and claim 50 is dependent on claim 49. Originally filed specification paragraph 49, provide non-limiting examples for a “internal memory”, “external memory”. While transmission mediums are clearly meant to include transitory propagating signals per se (e.g., “digital or analog communications signals or other intangible media”), the open nature of the examples given and what may be considered “tangible” for a “machine-readable medium” leave open the possibilities that it (i.e., the machine-readable medium) also includes transitory propagating signals per se.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals – Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claims 32-47 and 51 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.
Claims 32-47 and 51 are drawn to a system which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 32 recites: displaying and reviewing patient-specific medical apparatus data, a reader application, configured for processing and telecommunications functions and further configured to: capture an image of a QR code displayed, the QR code comprising an encoding of the patient-specific medical apparatus data; using the reader application, decode the QR code to obtain the patient-specific medical apparatus data; and display the patient-specific medical apparatus data using at least of a mobile application or a dynamically generated web page on a web browser.
Independent claim 51 recites: configurable computer-implemented application, capture an image of the QR code displayed, decode the QR code using the reader application; and display the patient-specific medical apparatus data using at least one of the mobile application or the dynamically generated web page on the web browser.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity between a physician and a patient, as reflected in the specification, which states that “The apparatus can be controlled by a controller 22, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller or similar, that receives input via the user input interface 18, operates the apparatus and is configured to provide output on the user output 17, including the display. The controller can have internal memory and/or also access external memory. The controller can also receive input from the sensors 20, 21 and record, process, store and collate the information for transfer, storing, reporting and review purposes by a physician, patient, medical device dealer, insurance company, manufacturer or other interested party.” (see: specification paragraph 49). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address monitoring the patient “Patients use medical apparatus to help with treatment of their ailments. Medical data relating to patients and/or their use of the medical apparatus is frequently captured and stored for the purposes of monitoring patients' health and assisting with their healthcare, or for monitoring the apparatus itself to ensure it is operating properly. Often, such data is captured by the medical apparatus that the patient is using, or that is otherwise being operated to monitor or assist the patient” (see: specification paragraph 3). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “system”, “mobile device”, “device”, “display”, “camera”, “processor”, “memory” are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the displaying and capturing of data and generating of a web page is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 2, Figure 3 and
Paragraph 49, where “The apparatus can be controlled by a controller 22, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller or similar, that receives input via the user input interface 18, operates the apparatus and is configured to provide output on the user output 17, including the display. The controller can have internal memory and/or also access external memory. The controller can also receive input from the sensors 20, 21 and record, process, store and collate the information for transfer, storing, reporting and review purposes by a physician, patient, medical device dealer, insurance company, manufacturer or other interested party. Among other things, the controller 22 is configured via a program or otherwise to take the captured information and encode it into the twodimensional barcode 19 for display on the medical apparatus display 17. The twodimensional (2D) barcode 17 encodes a) the access address of a computer system (such as the IP address/URL/website address of a website running on a webserver) to which the data is to be transferred, and b) appended data that represents the (medical) data captured by the controller from the medical apparatus. The two dimensional barcode 19 is used to assist transfer of the medical data on the apparatus 10 to a computer system 30 (see Figure 3) for storage, processing and distribution for review/display.”
Paragraph 51, where “Referring to Figure 2, to transfer the medical data from the medical apparatus to the computer system 30, a mobile device 24 is used (such as a PDA or mobile telecommunications device such as a smartphone). It comprises a camera 25 and also executes suitable barcode reader software/application 26 (known to those skilled in the art) which is used to capture an image 19a of the two-dimensional barcode 19 on the display of the medical apparatus 10, and process the barcode 19 for subsequent transfer of the encoded medical data to a computer system with the encoded access address. To achieve this, the camera 25 of the mobile device 24 is held close to the display 17 of the medical apparatus to take a photograph of the two-dimensional barcode 19, and the reader application facilitates the required processing and telecommunications functions (in conjunction with mobile device hardware) to access and transfer data to the computer system 30. Mobile devices 24, their hardware and functionality, and reader applications will be known to those skilled in the art.”
Paragraph 52, where “Figure 3 shows a typical system 33 that enables capture, transfer, storage and review/display of medical data from a medical apparatus utilising a two-dimensional barcode. The system comprises the medical apparatus 10 of Figure 1 and the mobile device 24 of Figure 2. The mobile device 24, once it has captured the two-dimensional barcode, uses the information encoded therein to access the computer system 30/database 30a and transfer the medical apparatus data. Typically, the mobile device 24 accesses the computer system via the internet or other wide-area network 31, using an IP address or URL (comprising a website address) or other suitable network address (access address) encoded in the two-dimensional barcode. It accesses the wide area network through a GPRS or GSM network or via any other suitable mode (either directly or indirectly, wired or wireless).”
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 33-36, 39, 41, 43-47 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 33-36, 39, 41, 43-47 recite transmitting, receiving, and displaying medical apparatus data and prompting QR codes on the generically recited computing device as shown in the parent claims above.
Claim 37 further recites “a personal computing device” which is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the accessing and displaying are performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations) as shown in the specification paragraph 54 and Figure 4A. Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 38 and 40 further recite “web server of a computing system”, which is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the accessing of web addresses are performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations) as shown in the specification paragraph 53. Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 38 further recites “patient-specific medical apparatus data is appended to the access address as a sub path of the URL” and claim 42 further recites: “dynamically generate an HTML page in a suitable format for display”, which are nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea and amount to insignificant post-solution activity concerning an insignificant application. The addition of an insignificant extra-solution activity limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, these claimed additional elements are incidental to the performance of correlating healthcare data as outlined in the recitations above. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 38 and 42 recites additional elements for extra-solution activity, as recited above, each of which amounts to mere post-solution activity concerning an insignificant application. The specification (e.g., paragraphs 53-55) does not indicate that the additional element(s) provide anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here).
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 32-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhoble (US 20110125519 A1) in view of Langford (US 2013/0054271 A1).
CLAIM 32-
Dhoble teaches the limitations of:
A system for displaying and reviewing patient-specific medical apparatus data, (Dhoble teaches a system that includes a display interface that displays specific patient data related to a medical device (para [0034, 0037, 0016, 0107, 0108]))
the system comprising: a mobile device comprising a display, a camera, and a reader application; the mobile device configured for processing and telecommunications functions and further configured to: (Dhoble teaches that the system may use a mobile device for communications (i.e., telecommunications) and may include inputs such as displays, cameras, and have applications that read data (para [0038, 0107-0109, 0116]))
capture an image of a QR code displayed on a device, the QR code comprising an encoding of the patient-specific medical apparatus data; (Dhoble teaches capturing a QR code that is displayed on a medical product/device (i.e., device diagnostic data that is medical apparatus data as defined in the specification paragraph 31) that uses specific patient user login and Device ID and encodes the data to determine which patient scanned the QR code (para [0030, 0035, 0049, 0083, 0086, Figure 2))
using the reader application, decode the QR code to obtain the patient-specific medical apparatus data; (Dhoble teaches that the system uses software applications to decode the patient management data to yield data related to the medical device that triggered the storing of data (para [0047-0049]))
display the patient-specific medical apparatus data on the display using at least one of a mobile application (Dhoble teaches displaying the generated data graphically to uses using various software applications (para [0118, 0078, 0030]))
Dhoble does not explicitly teach, however Langman teaches:
or a dynamically generated web page on a web browser (Langman teaches adding the encoded object as a parameter (i.e., dynamic generation) to the URL string that opens an internet web browser to the URL (para [0027]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of scanning QR codes to associate with patient specific medical device data of Dhoble to integrate the application of providing a specific URL that contains the patient data of Langman with the motivation of improving communication of a patient’s needs to their provider (see: Langman, paragraph 12).
CLAIM 33-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 32. Regarding claim 33, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the patient-specific medical apparatus data comprises patient physiological parameters (Dhoble teaches that the system uses feedback on the user’s progress which includes physiological responses to specific treatment responses which can include medical devices (para 0047, 0049]))
CLAIM 34-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 32. Regarding claim 34, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the patient-specific medical apparatus data comprises patient therapy information (Dhoble teaches that the system uses feedback on the user’s progress which includes results of analysis of patient response to various treatments which can include medical devices (para 0047, 0049]))
CLAIM 35-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 32. Regarding claim 35, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the device is configured to manually prompt or automatically trigger generation of the QR code (Dhoble teaches that a trigger media object (i.e., generations of the QR code) is automatically recognized by the device (para [0016, 00142-0146, 0080, Figure 6A))
CLAIM 36-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 32. Regarding claim 36, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the device is configured to manually prompt or automatically trigger display of the QR code (Dhoble teaches that a trigger media object (i.e., generations of the QR code) is automatically recognized by the device and is displayed (para [0016, 00142-0146, 0080, 0118, 0119, Figure 6A,Figure 8A))
CLAIM 37-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 32. Regarding claim 37, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the patient-specific medical apparatus data is configured to be accessed by a personal computing device (Dhoble teaches that the specific patient data received can be accessed by third-party service providers on their own computing devices (para [0016-0017, 0046-47, Figure 8B))
CLAIM 38-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 32. Regarding claim 38, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the mobile device is further configured to transfer the decoded QR code to a web server of a computer system, (Dhoble teaches that the system uses software applications of the mobile device to decode the patient management data to yield data related to the medical device that triggered the storing of data to a healthcare management server of a computing system (para [0030, 0037-38, 0044, 47-0049]))
the decoded QR code comprising a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) including an access address of the web server, (Dhoble teaches that the URL address associated with the device is analyzed by the healthcare management server to establish the application files to register the device to access the server and this process may be done when identifying user ID with a QR trigger (para [0057-0059, 0080], Figure 4A-4B))
Dhoble teaches patient specific data attached to a specific URL (paragraph 57), but does not explicitly teach, however Langman teaches:
wherein the patient-specific medical apparatus data is appended to the access address as a sub path of the URL (Langman teaches adding the encoded object as a parameter to the URL string that opens an internet web browser to the URL so that the encoded object (i.e., sub path) has a URL that includes information about the patient (i.e., patient medical apparatus data) (para [0027, 15]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of scanning QR codes to associate with patient specific medical device data of Dhoble to integrate the application of providing a specific URL that contains the patient data of Langman with the motivation of improving communication of a patient’s needs to their provider (see: Langman, paragraph 12).
CLAIM 39-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 38. Regarding claim 39, Dhoble further teaches:
further comprising the device and the computer system (Dhoble teaches that the system uses software applications of the mobile device that triggered the storing of data to a healthcare management server of a computing system (para [0030, 0037-38, 0044, 47-0049]))
CLAIM 40-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 38. Regarding claim 40, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the web server of the computer system is further configured to extract the patient-specific medical apparatus data from the sub path and processes, stores, or collates the patient-specific medical apparatus data (Dhoble teaches that the system uses software applications of the mobile device to decode the patient management data from the URL using patient specific address (i.e., subpath) of the URL to yield data related to the medical device that triggered the storing of patient device data to a healthcare management server of a computing system (para [0030, 0037-38, 0044, 47-0049, 0078]))
CLAIM 41-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 40. Regarding claim 41, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the computer system is further configured to transfer the extracted patient-specific medical apparatus data to the mobile device for display (Dhoble teaches that the system is displaying the generated data graphically to users and their user devices based on the medical device data (para [0118, 0078, 0030, 0085, 0049, Figure 7C]))
CLAIM 42-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 41. Regarding claim 42, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the web server of the computer system is further configured to transfer the extracted patient-specific medical apparatus data associated with the sub path to a service (Dhoble teaches that the system uses software applications of the mobile device to decode (i.e., extract) the patient management data from the URL using patient specific address (i.e., subpath) of the URL to yield data related to the medical device that triggered the storing of patient device data to a healthcare management server of a computing system (para [0030, 0037-38, 0044, 47-0049, 0078]))
that is configured to dynamically generate an HTML page in a suitable format for display of the patient-specific medical apparatus data on the mobile device on at least one of the mobile application (Dhoble teaches that the healthcare management server can provide an HTML web page that displays the patient specific medical device data on a mobile device and mobile application and is formatted on the mobile display screen (para [0054, 0049, 0053, 0074, 0078, Figure 7C]))
CLAIM 43-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 42. Regarding claim 43, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the computer system is further configured to transfer the HTML page to the mobile device for display on the display of the mobile device (Dhoble teaches that the healthcare management server can provide (i.e, transfer) an HTML web page that displays the patient specific medical device data on a mobile device and mobile application and is formatted on the mobile display screen (para [0054, 0049, 0053, 0074, Figure 7C]))
CLAIM 44-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 43. Regarding claim 44, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the device is further configured to record, process, store, or collate the patient-specific medical apparatus data (Dhoble teaches that the medical device data is stored in the database in fields (para [0128-0131, 0086, 0083]))
CLAIM 45-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 44. Regarding claim 45, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the device is further configured to record, process, store, or collate the patient-specific medical apparatus data prior to encoding the patient- specific medical apparatus data into the QR code (Dhoble teaches that the medical device data is stored in the database in fields and the database communicates with the program components when a QR code is scanned and the data encoded (para [0128-0131, 0086, 0083]))
CLAIM 46-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 32. Regarding claim 46, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the mobile application comprises the reader application (Dhoble teaches that the system uses software applications of the mobile device to yield data (para [0030, 0037-38, 0044, 47-0049, 0078]))
CLAIM 47-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 32. Regarding claim 47, Dhoble further teaches:
wherein the mobile application comprises an application different than the reader application (Dhoble teaches that the system uses software applications of the mobile device to yield data (para [0030, 0037-38, 0044, 47-0049, 0078]))
CLAIM 48-
Claim 48 is significantly similar to claim 32 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 32.
CLAIM 49-
Claim 49 is significantly similar to claims 32, 45 and 46 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 32, 45 and 46.
CLAIM 50-
Dhoble in view of Langman teaches the limitations of claim 49. Regarding claim 50, Dhoble further teaches:
the device configured to generate and display the QR code (Dhoble teaches that the mobile device generates media of trigger (i.e., QR code) and displays the feedback data associated with it (Figure 2, 8A)
CLAIM 51-
Claim 51 is significantly similar to claim 32 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 32.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/KIMBERLY A. SASS/Examiner, Art Unit 3686