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 .
The Amendment filed on 06/29/26 has been received and entered. Application No. 18/790,416 of which claims 2, 3, 10, 17 and 18 are canceled and claim 25 is added. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 19-25 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s response, filed on 06/29/26, with respect to 101 rejections directed to an abstract idea of claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 19-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to double patenting rejections of claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 19-25 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 19-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Applicant’s response with respect to double patenting rejections of claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 19-25 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 19-25 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, 19-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.12,079,199 in view of Weinert et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0006133).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 19-25 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the patented claims to one of ordinary skill in the art. See the table below.
Instant Application
Claims 1 & 9 & 16 and claim 6. A method of reducing impact of user-entered data errors in a data management system (DMS), the DMS executing a DMS application on a processor to request user-entered event data from a user for an event via a DMS application interface
and store the user-entered event data received from the user into a primary DMS database, the method comprising: obtaining secondary data from one or more sensors;
cross-checking the user-entered event data against the secondary data to
determine whether the user-entered event data is consistent with the
secondary data via the processor; assigning a state and a weight to the user-entered event data based on a result of
cross-checking; displaying a request to the user to review and correct or confirm an accuracy of the user-entered event data after cross-checking the user-entered event data against the secondary data, wherein the request is based on the state assigned to the user-entered event data; updating the state and the weight of the user-entered event data in the primary DMS
database to an updated state and an updated weight based on a user's response to the request; and
determining a diabetes management recommendation based on the updated state and the updated weight assigned to the user-entered event data; wherein the state and the updated state are each indicative of a confidence level in the
accuracy of the user-entered event data, and the weight and the updated weight are each indicative of a consideration given to the user-entered event data when determining the diabetes management recommendation, wherein the diabetes management recommendation includes an insulin dosing regimen; and administering medication via an artificial pancreas according to the insulin dosing regimen of the diabetes management recommendation.
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one sensor of the one or more sensors detects non-glucose data.
Claims 4, 14 & 19. The method of claim 1 , wherein the state is at least one of "to be reviewed", "suspect", "unverified", "verified", "validated", and "invalidated", wherein the weight is a numerical value.
Claim 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the at least one sensor is an on-body sensor capable of detecting at least one of: analytes, blood pressure, heart rate, pulse, wakefulness, breathing rate, respiration, body temperature, ambient temperature, pulse oximetry, humidity, electrocardiogram, movement, acceleration, proximity, direction,
altitude, speed, applied force, pressure, perspiration, aging, sound, eating, drinking, snoring, bodyweight, height, and body composition.
Patent U.S. 12,079,199
Claims 1, 8 &14. A method of reducing impact of user-entered data errors in a data management system (DMS), the DMS executing a DMS application on a processor to request user-entered event data from a user for an event via a DMS application interface and store the user-entered event data received from the user into a primary DMS database, the method comprising: obtaining secondary data from at least two sensors, wherein a first sensor detects non-glucose data; storing the secondary data into a secondary tracking database; cross-checking the user-entered event data against the secondary data to determine whether the user-entered event data is consistent with the secondary data via the processor; assigning a state and a weight to the user-entered event data based on a result of cross-checking, wherein the state indicates a status of the user-entered event data, and wherein the weight indicates a confidence level in an accuracy of the user-entered event data; displaying a request to the user to review and correct or confirm the user-entered event data based on the state, wherein displaying the request includes prompting the user to indicate whether the user-entered event data are more accurate than the secondary data or whether the secondary data is more accurate than the user-entered event data; updating the state and the weight of the user-entered event data in the primary DMS database to an updated state and an updated weight based on a user's response to the request; and updating a diabetes management plan in response to the updated state and the updated weight assigned to the user-entered event data indicating a change in medication, testing, diet, or exercise.
Claims 5, 12 & 18. The method of claim 1, wherein the state is at least one of “to be reviewed”, “suspect”, “unverified”, “verified”, “validated”, and “invalidated”.
Claim 16. The method of claim 14, wherein the first sensor is an on-body sensor capable of detecting at least one of: analytes other than blood glucose, blood pressure, heart rate, pulse, wakefulness, breathing rate, respiration, body temperature, ambient temperature, pulse oximetry, humidity, electrocardiogram, movement, acceleration, proximity, direction, altitude, speed, applied force, pressure, perspiration, aging, sound, eating/drinking, snoring, bodyweight, height, and body composition.
Table 1
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, 19-25 of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.12,079,199 which is the system and method to reduce the impact of user-entered data errors in diabetes management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of indicating whether the user-entered event data are more accurate than the secondary data or whether the secondary data is more accurate than the user-entered event data at the time the invention was made to incorporate the system and method for abstracting configuration data from blockchain from the independent claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.12,079,199. Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16, Claims 1, 8, and 14 of the patent does not explicitly disclose "administering medication via an artificial pancreas according to the diabetes management recommendation". One of ordinary skill in the art would have found these differences to be obvious because Weinert teaches drug administration information in form of recommended dosage [0004]-[0006] and diabetes control arrangement, administering medication process [0037]-[0038] and [0043]. One would have been motivated to administer medication via an administration device according to the diabetes management recommendation (Figures 4-5) [0009]-[0010], [0050].
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinert et al. (U.S. Pub 2012/0289803; hereinafter “Weinert”) in view of Shaya (U.S. PGPub 2010/0262434) and further in view of Weinert et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0006133; hereinafter “Weinert2”).
As per claims 1, 9, and 16, Weinert discloses a method of reducing impact of user-entered data errors in a data management system (DMS), the DMS executing a DMS application on a processor to request user-entered event data from a user for an event via a DMS application interface and store the user-entered event data received from the user into a primary DMS database, the method comprising: obtaining secondary data from one or more sensors; (See paras. 41, 107-109, 130, wherein structured collection procedure, secondary schedule of event, secondary adherence criterion are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
cross-checking the user-entered event data against the secondary data to determine whether the user-entered event data is consistent with the secondary data via the processor; (See Fig. 6D, paras. 43-44, 106-107, wherein adherence criterion, comparison/assessment of data, data collection process, structured collection procedure in which “adherence criterion can be applied to contextualized biomarker data so that a biomarker data is accepted depending on a comparison of the contextualized data about documenting and interrelating conditions that exists or occurs surrounding the collection of the specific biomarker”[0043] are disclosed, also See Fig. 6E, paras. 71, 167-168, wherein contextual information collected from user interface are disclosed, also See Fig. 9, paras. 176, wherein comparison of data process in which “contextualized data 170 is evaluated using adherence criterion (or criteria) 224 to generate accepted contextualized data 395 that meets the adherence criterion 224 in step 394. As the adherence criterion 224 can provide a basis for comparison of a data event value 256 with a standard, so the data event value can be either accepted and used or rejected and not used, the adherence criteria 224 can be used to filter data”[0176] (analogous to cross-checking user-entered data against secondary data) are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
assigning a state and a weight to the user-entered event data based on a result of cross-checking. (See Fig. 5A, paras. 84, 99-100, 108-109, wherein status assessment, confidence interval are disclosed, also See paras. 130, 231, wherein status, recommendation to change adherence/criterion process, weighted adherence events are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
However, Weinert fails to displaying a request to the user to review and correct or confirm an accuracy of the user-entered event data after cross-checking the user-entered event data against the secondary data, wherein the request is based on the state assigned to the user-entered event data; updating the state and the weight of the user-entered event data in the primary DMS database to an updated state and an updated weight based on a user's response to the request; determining a diabetes management recommendation based on the updated state and the updated weight assigned to the user-entered event data, wherein the state and the updated state are each indicative of a confidence level in the accuracy of the user-entered event data, and the weight and the updated weight are each indicative of a consideration given to the user-entered event data when determining the diabetes management recommendation, wherein the diabetes management recommendation includes an insulin dosing regimen.
On the other hand, Shaya teaches displaying a request to the user to review and correct or confirm an accuracy of the user-entered event data after cross-checking the user-entered event data against the secondary data, (See paras. 103-104, 116, 162, wherein patient marking accuracy of data and comparing of data process in which “ One way to improve the method is for the patient to mark less reliable data where, for instance, carbohydrate intake is an estimate or guess. This data could be eliminated from consideration so that sensitivity parameters are based on only the more accurate data” [0103] and “If insulin-on-board calculations are not supported, the timestamp of BG.sub.2 is compared to the timestamp of the last I.sub.a component (if there is an I.sub.a value for the event). BG.sub.2 needs to be at least a critical interval to work for the type of insulin used by the patient for bolus injections. If below this critical interval, the event is marked as uncertain in the next substep 409, and the next event is also marked as uncertain because too much pre-event insulin is affecting the BG that follows the current BG.sub.2 in the next event” [0162[ are disclosed, also See Fig. 1, paras. 136-137, wherein user interface features in which “user interface 80 allows the user to enter or correct data and to direct the CPU 60 to display any of representations of the data, a plot of transformed data, the sensitivity factor results, or their confidence limits. These displays appear to the user on a display 70 that is envisioned as an optical interface, but can be design for aural communication when required. An uncertainty flag can be generated for any data entry using a user interface 80 by clicking on a box marked "value is a rough estimate" or an equivalent expression when data are acquired” [0136]; as taught by Shaya.)
wherein the request is based on the state assigned to the user-entered event data; (See Fig. 9, paras. 234, 264-266, wherein requested data through user interface in which “The sensitivity factors are used by the patient to calculate bolus insulin doses, provided to an insulin pump to calculate bolus insulin doses, or apparatus 2000 can calculate a bolus insulin dose if the pre-meal blood glucose (BG) and intended meal Carbs are available by patient entry or wireless access to either or both of these meal or event variables. The calculation apparatus 2000 can perform the recommended bolus insulin calculation using Equation 8 and the internally stored currently active sensitivity factors” [0265] are disclosed; as taught by Shaya.)
updating the state and the weight of the user-entered event data in the primary DMS database to an updated state and an updated weight based on a user's response to the request; (See Fig. 2, paras. 138, 258, wherein updating data process in which “patient sensitivity factors can be derived from the data. These derived patient sensitivity factors can be displayed to the patient for consideration of use of the derived sensitivity factors or the pump may update these parameters automatically” [0138], also See paras. 268, 277, wherein updating process are disclosed; as taught by Shaya.)
determining a diabetes management recommendation based on the updated state and the updated weight assigned to the user-entered event data, (See paras. 49-50, 138-139, 198, wherein determining recommended bolus dose process in which “insulin pumps commonly record I.sub.a, the bolus insulin delivered to the patient, and the time of the delivery and in many models help the patient to calculate the bolus insulin dose by asking for entry of meal Carbs and pre-meal blood glucose, BG, to generate a bolus insulin recommendation based on the current values of the patient's sensitivity factors” [0138] are disclosed; as taught by Shaya.)
wherein the state and the updated state are each indicative of a confidence level in the accuracy of the user-entered event data, and the weight and the updated weight are each indicative of a consideration given to the user-entered event data when determining the diabetes management recommendation, (See Fig. 6, paras. 198-199, 211-213, wherein determining recommended bolus dose are disclosed; as taught by Shaya.)
wherein the diabetes management recommendation includes an insulin dosing regimen. (See Figs. 6-7, paras. 198-199, 211-213, 219, wherein calculations providing recommended insulin dose are disclosed; as taught by Shaya.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Shaya teachings in the Weinert system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system to calculate diabetic sensitivity factors affecting blood glucose taught by Shaya in the Weinert system for efficient handling of structured collection protocols. In addition, both of the references (Weinert and Shaya) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data partitioning. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, Weinert and Shaya fails to disclose administering medication via an artificial pancreas according to the insulin dosing regimen of the diabetes management recommendation.
On the other hand, Weinert2 teaches administering medication via an artificial pancreas according to the insulin dosing regimen of the diabetes management recommendation. (See paras. 4-6, wherein drug administration information in form of recommended dosage in which “method may further comprise displaying the drug administration information in the form of a recommended dosage of the drug. Alternatively or additionally, the method may further comprise controlling a drug administration device to administer to the patient at least one amount of the drug based on the drug administration information” [0006] are disclosed, also See paras. 37-38, 43, wherein diabetes control arrangement, administering medication process in which “a diabetes control arrangement in which one or more recommended or automatically administered bolus(es) of a glucose-lowering drug is the illustrated and described mechanism for diabetes control, and relate more specifically to meal-related information as the illustrated and described patient input information from which the one or more recommended or automatically administered insulin bolus(es) is/are determined” [0037] are disclosed, also See Figs. 4-5, paras. 9-10, 50, wherein administration device, artificial endocrine pancreas are disclosed; as taught by Weinert2.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Weinert2 teachings in the combination of Weinert and Shaya system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system for patient information input interface for a therapy to taught by Weinert2 in the combination of combination of Weinert and Shaya system for efficient handling of structured collection protocols. In addition, both of the references (Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data partitioning. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claims 4, 14 and 19, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2discloses wherein the state is at least one of "to be reviewed", "suspect", "unverified", "verified", "validated", and "invalidated", wherein the weight is a numerical value. (See paras. 109, 123, wherein predefined status are disclosed, also See paras. 130, 231, wherein status, recommendation to change adherence/criterion process, weighted adherence events are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claims 5 and 20, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2 discloses wherein the request is presented as a question to the user on a display of a DMS device executing the DMS application. (See Figs. 4, 5A, 5B, paras. 46, 71, 78, 84-85, wherein structured collection procedure, questions are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claim 6, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2 discloses wherein at least one sensor of the one or more sensors detects non-glucose data. (See Figs. 19A, paras. 66, 235, wherein various data, such as life style data, biomarker readings, medical indicators are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claim 7, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2 discloses wherein the at least one sensor is an on-body sensor capable of detecting at least one of: analytes, blood pressure, heart rate, pulse, wakefulness, breathing rate, respiration, body temperature, ambient temperature, pulse oximetry, humidity, electrocardiogram, movement, acceleration, proximity, direction, altitude, speed, applied force, pressure, perspiration, aging, sound, eating, drinking, snoring, bodyweight, height, and body composition. (See Fig. 4, paras. 64-65, 71, 86, 127, wherein biosensor, biomarker readings, heart rate measurement, etc. are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claim 8, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2 discloses associating the secondary data with one or more events described by user-entered data stored in the primary DMS database, wherein associating the secondary data with the one or more events includes storing pointers to the secondary data in records of the primary DMS database associated with the one or more events. (See paras. 38, 46, 50, wherein process of storing data together, collection device functions disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claim 11, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2 discloses wherein the secondary data comprises results of one or more rulesets stored in the memory applied to the user-entered event data stored in the primary DMS database related to the event. (See paras. 39-40, wherein various criteria, rules, guidelines are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claim 12, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2 discloses a secondary DMS database accessible by the DMS application, wherein the secondary data is stored in the secondary DMS database. (See paras. 38, 46, 50, wherein process of storing data, collection device functions disclosed, also See para. 61, wherein storage units are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claim 13, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2 discloses wherein the primary DMS database includes: a time stamp field for storing a representation of a time and date that the event occurred; (See paras. 37, 40, wherein various factors, such as time, food, etc. with respect to collection of biomarker measurements are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
an event field for storing a representation of a description of the event; (See paras. 37, 40, 74, wherein various factors and descriptions, such as time, food, etc. with respect to collection of biomarker measurements are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
a state field for storing a representation of the state of the event; (See paras. 37, 40, 74, wherein various factors and descriptions, such as time, food, etc. with respect to collection, also See paras. 224, wherein various stages with respect to disease state and monitoring process, stages of collection procedure are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
and a weight field for storing a representation of the weight of the event. (See Fig. 5A, paras. 84, 99-100, 108-109, wherein status assessment, confidence interval are disclosed, also See paras. 130, 231, wherein status, recommendation to change adherence/criterion process, weighted adherence events are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claim 15, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2 discloses wherein the secondary DMS database includes: a secondary time stamp field for storing a representation of a secondary time and date that an associated secondary event was recorded; a secondary event ID field for storing a representation of a unique identifier for the associated secondary event; and a secondary event field for storing a representation of a secondary description of the associated secondary event, wherein the primary DMS database further includes an associated secondary event ID field for storing a representation of one or more secondary event identifiers such that the DMS application records associations between primary DMS data stored in the primary DMS database and secondary DMS data stored in the secondary DMS database. (See paras. 37, 40, wherein various factors, such as time, food, etc. with respect to collection of biomarker measurements are disclosed, also See paras. 90, 107, 184, wherein primary, secondary adherence criterion are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claim 21, the combination of Weinert, Shaya, and Weinert2 discloses wherein requesting the user-entered event data includes prompting the user for information regarding at least one of a user's meal markers, a user's exercise, a user's medication, or a user's sleep. (See para. 106, wherein prompt on display a question on meal/exercise are disclosed; as taught by Weinert.)
As per claims 22 and 23, the combination of Weinert and Weinert2 fails to disclose wherein at least one sensor assembly from the one or more sensor assemblies detects non-glucose data.
On the other hand, Shaya teaches wherein at least one sensor assembly from the one or more sensor assemblies detects non-glucose data. (See paras. 208, wherein utilizing sensor for various operations, such as food potion weighing are disclosed; as taught by Shaya.)
See claims 9 and 16 for motivation above.
As per claim 24, the combination of Weinert and Weinert2 fails to disclose wherein the diabetes management recommendation further includes a recommendation to test a blood glucose level of the user.
On the other hand, Shaya teaches wherein the diabetes management recommendation further includes a recommendation to test a blood glucose level of the user. (See paras. 13, 224, 231-233, wherein calculating bolus insulin injection process and glucose reader features on reading blood glucose levels in which “The sensor component (not shown) of the glucose reader 510 may be located externally to the patient, whereby blood must be brought to the sensor, or internally to the patient whereby contact of the sensor with blood or interstitial fluids may permit a reading affected by blood glucose levels” [0233] are disclosed; as taught by Shaya.)
See claims 9 and 16 for motivation above.
As per claim 25, the combination of Weinert and Weinert2 fails to disclose wherein the one or more sensors includes at least two sensors.
On the other hand, Shaya teaches wherein the one or more sensors includes at least two sensors. (See Fig. 6, paras. 199, 208, wherein sensors are disclosed; as taught by Shaya.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
