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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present office action represents the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/515,545 dated 25 July 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(I) because the following figure(s) is/are unreadable and/or are unsatisfactory for reproduction:
Fig. 4-27 (text unreadable and in shaded areas)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The Examiner has made an effort to identify as many drawing issues as possible; however, given the unreadable nature of the noted drawings it is likely that additional issues remain, such as text below the 1/8” limit. It is incumbent upon the Applicant to review to Specification and Drawings to ensure that no addition objectionable issues remain.
Claim Interpretation
The following constitutes the Examiner’s best understanding of the features of the claim:
Event = injury (see Spec. Para. 0047), disease (see Fig. 12, Spec. Para. 0125), or a condition (see Spec. Para. 0125)
Event location = geographic location where the injury occurred and/or where treatment will occur (see Spec. Para. 0048, 0133)
Remediation = treatment / medical care (see Spec. Para. 0047) or diagnosis of a condition (see Spec. Para. 0183)
Category of remediation = category of care (see Spec. Para. 0093) such as medical services, equipment, transportation, and labor (see Spec. Para. 0114) or a diagnosis of a medical condition (see Spec. Para. 0176)
remedial location designation = where treatment occurs such as in-facility or out or facility (see Spec. Para. 0114)
remediation preference type = surgery, medication, inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment, equipment, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and any other treatment related to the care of an injury service length (see Spec. Para. 0047)
number of annual units = undescribed, perhaps cost/payment per year (see Spec. Para. 0047)
uncovered equivalent = uninsured cost, perhaps an out-of-pocket payment (see Spec. Para. 0081)
an equivalency system = part of a computer that calculates a localized equivalency (cost) for a specific administrative location (e.g., zip code) (see Spec. Para. 0051)
an equipment system = part of a computer that calculates the cost of equipment (see Spec. Para. 0066)
a statistics system = part of a computer that maintains a collection of location-based cost differences for different locations (see Spec. Para. 0067)
a remedial substance system = part of a computer that maintains drug/vaccine information (see Spec. Para. 0068)
a service system = part of a computer that calculates the cost of providing services to a user/patient (see Spec. Para. 0069)
a projection = a cost estimate for treatment of an injury (see Spec. Para. 0047)
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, 16 are objected to because they recite “a user device.” Because “a user device” was already recited in the independent claims, the Examiner believes this should read “the user device.” Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “receiving, by the computer system and from the user device, one or more categories of remediation for the at least one remediation profile.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the received “one or more categories of remediation” is meant to replace the received “a category of remediation” recited in Claim 1 or be an additional category of remediation. From the context of the claim these items appear to be the same. The Examiner suggests reciting “one or more categories of remediation” in Claim 1 and then referring to “the one or more categories of remediation” in Claim 5. Claims 12 and 19 have similar issues and are indefinite for the same reasons.
By virtue of their dependence from Claim 5, 8, or 15, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent Claims 6, 13, and 20.
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 1-20 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 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a methos, system, and computer-readable medium (“CRM”), device, and method for event based predictive modeling, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) collecting a personal profile of a user; receiving information identifying a first event location for an event associated with the user; receiving at least one remediation profile for remediation of the user, wherein each remediation profile comprises one or more of a category of remediation, a remedial location designation, a remediation preference type, a service length, a number of annual units, or an uncovered equivalent; for each remediation profile: identifying, from a plurality of data analysis techniques, a set of data analysis techniques associated with the remediation profile, each data analysis techniques comprising one or more of an equivalency analysis technique, an equipment analysis technique, a statistics analysis technique, a remedial substance analysis technique, or a service analysis technique; providing the personal profile, the first event location, and the remediation profile as input to the set of data analysis techniques; generating, using the set of data analysis techniques, a projection as output for each remediation profile; and providing information associated with the projection for each remediation profile, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the computer, processor/memory, or CRM, this claim encompasses a person collecting information related to a patient injury, applying various data analysis techniques, generating a projection in a profile, and presenting the profile in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of (Claim 1) a computer, (Claim 8) one or more memories and one or more processors, or (Claim 15) a CRM that implements the identified abstract idea. These devices are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer; see Spec. Para. 0205) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional element of “a user device.” The suer device merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does 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, the additional element of using (Claim 1) a computer, (Claim 8) one or more memories and one or more processors, or (Claim 15) a CRM to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a user device” was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 re similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 merely describe(s) determining additional data, generating an output of the additional data, and presenting the additional data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2 also includes the additional element of “a user device” which is analyzed the same as the “a user device” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 merely describe(s) outputting and receiving information, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 also includes the additional element of “a graphical user interface” which is interpreted to be part of the user device and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 also includes an “interactive map” that does not have any “integrative” functionality associated with it and is thus interpreted to be part of the abstract idea. Should the map actually have interactive functionality, the interactive map generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. Generally linking is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more. See also Mapquest, c.2004.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 merely describe(s) receiving additional location data and updating the projection, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 also include an “interactive map” which is analyzed the same manner as in Claim(s) 3, 10, 17.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19 merely describe(s) providing information, receiving a response, querying the data analysis techniques to identify matching data and providing the matching data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 merely describe(s) receiving data and adding the data to the remediation profile, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7, 14 merely describe(s) the event location, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Soisson (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2020/0020043).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Soisson teaches the claimed computer-implemented method comprising:
collecting, by a computer system, a personal profile of a user; [Para. 0059, 0064 teaches that a patient profile is received by a computer system.]
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying a first event location for an event associated with the user; [Para. 0068 teaches that patient location data is received.]
receiving, by the computer system, at least one remediation profile for remediation of the user, wherein each remediation profile comprises one or more of [Para. 0079, 0082 teaches that the following are received by the computer as part of a questionnaire. The Examiner notes that only one “remediation profile” is required and the remediation profile only requires one of the following.]
a category of remediation, [Para. 0082 teaches that the patient indicates that surgery (an appendectomy for example) is planned (i.e., a medical service; a category of remediation). This is interpreted as part of a remediation profile.]
a remedial location designation, [Para. 0079 teaches that the patient profile includes an indication that the patient will stay in a hospital overnight. This is interpreted as part of a remediation profile.]
a remediation preference type, [Para. 0069, 0082 teaches that the patient indicates that surgery (an appendectomy for example) is planned (also a remediation preference type). Para. 0080, 0081 similarly teaches that the patient selects a procedure. This is interpreted as part of a remediation profile.]
a service length,
a number of annual units, or
an uncovered equivalent;
for each remediation profile:
identifying, from a plurality of data systems, a set of data systems associated with the remediation profile, each data system comprising one or more of [Para. 0064, 0073, 0090 teaches that the following are identified. The Examiner notes that only two of the following (a plurality…comprising one or more) are required.]
an equivalency system, [Para. 0064, 0090 teaches that the cost for a geographic area is calculated based on the indicated surgery (remediation profile), thus the system teaches an equivalency system.]
an equipment system,
a statistics system,
a remedial substance system, or
a service system; [Para. 0073, 0090 teaches a pricing application (service system) uses the surgery indication to determine a cost, thus the system teaches a service system.]
providing the personal profile, the first event location, and the remediation profile as input to the set of data systems; [Para. 0090 teaches that the patient profile data, including the patient location, along with the procedure (remediation profile) are used by the system to estimate the total cost of the procedure(s), thus they are provided to the estimation system.]
generating, using the set of data systems, a projection as output for each remediation profile; and [Para. 0090 teaches that the cost is estimated for the procedure (remediation profile).]
providing, for presentation at a user device, information associated with the projection for each remediation profile. [Fig. 25, Para. 0068, 0090 teaches that the cost estimate is communicated to the user via a web portal. Para. 0059 reaches that the web portal is accessed by a user interface device.]
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Soisson teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Soisson further teaches
wherein receiving information identifying the first event location comprises:
providing, by the computer system, instructions to cause the user device to display a graphical user interface comprising an interactive map; and [Fig. 24 teaches display of a map with the patient location displayed. The Examiner notes that no interaction is claimed to occur within the map and thus “interactive map” is a non-functional label.]
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying a first event location from the user device, [Para. 0068 teaches that patient location data is received.]
wherein the information identifying the first event location is provided as input to the interactive map. [Fig. 24 teaches that the patient location is displayed by the map and thus the location is “provided as input” into the map, which displays the location.]
The Examiner notes that should the claim be amended to state that the interactive map receives input into the map from the patient identifying a location, Patt will be cited to teach this feature.
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Soisson teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Soisson further teaches
wherein the event location is a location at which the remediation of the user is to be performed. [Fig. 24, 25, Para. 0043, 0068 teaches that the location is the location where the treatment will occur (i.e., Dallas, TX; “Hospitals near you”).]
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 8 AND 10
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1 and 3, respectively, thus Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1 and 3.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 11 AND 13
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1 and 3, respectively, thus Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1 and 3.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 14
Claim(s) 14 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 7, thus Claim(s) 14 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Soisson (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2020/0020043) in view of Saigal et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2012/0047105).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Soisson teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Soisson may not explicitly teach
wherein providing information associated with the projection for each remediation profile comprises, for each remediation profile:
determining, by the computer system, a remediation assessment score;
generating, by the computer system, a visual representation of the remediation assessment score; and
providing, by the computer system, instructions that cause a user device to display the visual representation as the information associated with the projection.
Saigal at Fig. 14-1, Para. 0079, 0082, 0277, 0278, 0284 teaches that it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to determine a numerical rating for potential patient treatment and display the rating to a patient
wherein providing information associated with the projection for each remediation profile comprises, for each remediation profile:
determining, by the computer system, a remediation assessment score; [Saigal at Fig. 14-1, Para. 0079, 0082, 0277, 0284 teaches that patient input preferences (the input of Soisson) are used to determine a numerical rating (a remediation assessment score, which is undefined by the Applicant) for various treatment options for a medical condition.]
generating, by the computer system, a visual representation of the remediation assessment score; and [Saigal at Fig. 14-1, Para. 0277 teaches that a display is created displaying the ranking.]
providing, by the computer system, instructions that cause a user device to display the visual representation as the information associated with the projection. [Saigal at Fig. 14-1, Para. 0278 teaches that the display is displayed on the client (patient) computer.]
The Examiner notes that only one remediation profile is required in Claim 1, thus the provided remediation score is, at minimum, a single score for a single treatment. However, Saigal has been cited to show that multiple scores for multiple treatments based on patient preference input is known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the treatment cost estimation system of Soisson to determine a numerical rating for potential patient treatment and display the rating to a patient as taught by Saigal, with the motivation of improving the accuracy and effectiveness of treatment decision support (see Saigal at Para. 0008).
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 9 AND 16
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 2, thus Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Soisson (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2020/0020043) in view of Patt et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2023/0110486).
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Soisson teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claims 1 and 3.
Soisson may not explicitly teach
wherein providing the information associated with the projection for each remediation profile comprises:
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying a second event location from the user device, wherein the information identifying the second event location is provided as input to the interactive map; and
updating, by the computer system, the projection based at least in part on the second event location.
Patt at Para. 0060, 0061, 0149 teaches that it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to receive location information via an interactive map that indicates the location where injuries were sustained and determine associated costs
wherein providing the information associated with the projection for each remediation profile comprises:
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying a second event location from the user device, wherein the information identifying the second event location is provided as input to the interactive map; and [Patt at Para. 0060, 0061 teaches that the location of an accident and resultant injuries (plural, one of which is interpreted as a second event) are indicated in a map.]
updating, by the computer system, the projection based at least in part on the second event location. [Para. 0149 teaches creating a cost estimate based on the injuries (plural) which occurred at the location, which is interpreted as updating the cost estimate of Soisson.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the treatment cost estimation system of Soisson to receive location information via an interactive map that indicates the location where injuries were sustained and determine associated costs as taught by Patt, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of contextual information gathering related to an event (see Patt at Para. 0021).
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 11 AND 18
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 4, thus Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 4.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Soisson (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2020/0020043) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2017/0124268).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Soisson teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Soisson further teaches
wherein receiving the at least one remediation profile comprises:
providing, by the computer system, instructions to cause the user device to display a graphical user interface; [Fig. 17, Para. 0083 teaches that a user interface is provided to the user.]
receiving, by the computer system and from the user device, one or more categories of remediation for the at least one remediation profile; [Para. 0082 teaches that the patient indicates that surgery (an appendectomy for example) is planned (i.e., a medical service; a category of remediation).]
Soisson may not explicitly teach
querying, by the computer system, the plurality of data systems to identify a plurality of matching remediation preference types that correspond to the one or more categories of remediation; and
providing, by the computer system, instructions to cause the user device to display at least one of the plurality of matching remediation preference types on the graphical user interface.
Zhang at Fig. 4, Para. 0032, 0037, 0065 teaches that it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to determine alternate treatments based on patient preference data and to display the alternate treatments
querying, by the computer system, the plurality of data systems to identify a plurality of matching remediation preference types that correspond to the one or more categories of remediation; and [Zhang at Para. 0032, 0037 teaches a software application (interpreted to correspond to one of the “systems” of Claim 1) that identifies alternate treatment recommendations for a particular treatment decision (the treatment of Soissan) based on inputted patient preferences. The alternate treatment recommendations are interpreted as “matching remediation preference types that correspond to the one or more categories of remediation” there being no claimed description of what “matching” or “that correspond” entail.]
providing, by the computer system, instructions to cause the user device to display at least one of the plurality of matching remediation preference types on the graphical user interface. [Fig. 4, Para. 0065 teaches that the alternate treatments are displayed.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the treatment cost estimation system of Soisson to determine alternate treatments based on patient preference data and to display the alternate treatments at taught by Zhang, with the motivation of simplifying the decision-making process (see Zhang at Para. 0033).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Soisson/Zhang teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claims 1 and 5. Soisson/Zhang further teaches
receiving, by the computer system, information identifying one or more remediation preference types of the plurality of matching remediation preference types; and [Zhang at Fig. 6-I teaches that a patient selection of a treatment is received.]
adding, by the computer system, the one or more of the plurality of matching remediation preference types to the at least one remediation profile. [Zhang at Fig. 6-I, Para. 0078 teaches that a patient treatment selection is stored in a patient decision data store (interpreted to correspond to the patient data of Soisson).]
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 12, 13, 19, AND 20
Claim(s) 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 5 or 6, thus Claim(s) 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 5 or 6.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Kaminsky et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2018/0247022) which discloses a system for estimating healthcare costs associated with treating a diagnosed condition.
Srivastava (U.S. Patent No. 11,126,696) which discloses a system for recommending an alternate provider to perform a procedure based on a cost prediction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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 Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683