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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, Ln. 1-2 recites “the plurality of face mask sensors is integrated” which should read “the plurality of face mask sensors are integrated”
Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12 and 17 is/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 1 recites the limitation “receiving a measurement of an overall force applied to the patient from a second sensor” in Ln. 5-6 which deems the claim indefinite. The claim provides no location or context for the second sensor to understand what is meant by “an overall force applied to the patient.” For example, could the overall force be a pressure in the lungs during active ventilation or a force of chest compressions during CPR? Note by contrast the particular sensor location recited in claim 13 which identifies how the overall force is to be understood (i.e. as a force measured at a rear of the head). The limitation as presently recited is confusing and unreasonably broad. It is suggested to add to claim 1 the specificity of the second sensor recited in claim 8. Claim 8 is not rejected as indefinite because of how it provides clarity in understanding the “measurement of an overall force applied to the patient” recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “contextualizing the measured applied force and the measured overall force to provide a graphical user interface” in Ln. 7-8 which deems the claim indefinite. The limitation clearly implies providing a graphical user interface based upon the measured applied force and the measured overall force. The claim provides no indication of what is meant by the term “contextualizing.” Thus, it is unclear if the term “contextualizing” imparts any particular meaning to what is shown on the graphical user interface or if it merely establishing an environment why the data is shown on the graphical user interface. Applicant is requested to clarify the purpose of the term “contextualizing” in the limitation.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “comparing each sensor measurement of the plurality of face mask sensors to assess similarity of the applied force across the face mask” in Ln. 1-3 which deems the claim indefinite. The limitation appears to imply that all of the plurality of face mask sensors measure applied force. However, neither claim 5 not claim 6 have specified any particular type of sensor for the plurality of face mask sensors beyond the first sensor of claim 1. The claim is thus unreasonably broad because it fails to define the type of sensor while then only appearing to imply what the plurality of sensors might be measuring. For the purposes of examination the plurality of sensors will all be read as having the same general form as the first sensor from claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the head of the infant manikin” in Ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the claim will instead be read as dependent on claim 16, which provides the proper antecedent basis.
Examiner Comment- 35 USC § 101
Examiner notes that claim 1 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 despite reciting an abstract idea. The two receiving steps of claim 1 are found to involve particular sensor placement which is not routine and conventional. Claim 1 is thus found patent eligible under the Step 2B analysis.
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, 5-9, 12-14 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mashal et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0065784).
Regarding claim 1, Mashal discloses a method of assessing ventilation, comprising the steps of: receiving a measurement of an applied force between a face mask (Figs. 5 or 6a are a face mask; ¶¶0187-0190) and a face of a patient from a first sensor (Figs. 5 or 6a any of #220, 222, 224, 226; ¶¶0187-0190) located at least partially between the face mask and the face of the patient; receiving a measurement of an overall force applied to the patient from a second sensor (Fig. 6c #260; ¶0199); and contextualizing the measured applied force and the measured overall force to provide a graphical user interface (¶0265; see for examples Figs. 19b-19g and ¶¶0269-0280). The claim is afforded full priority benefit dating to 24 Aug 2023.
Regarding claim 5, Mashal discloses the first sensor is one of a plurality of face mask sensors (Figs. 5 or 6a any of #220, 222, 224, 226; ¶¶0187-0190).
Regarding claim 6, Mashal discloses the steps of comparing each sensor measurement of the plurality of face mask sensors to assess similarity of the applied force across the face mask (e.g. Figs. 19b-19g and ¶¶0269-0280).
Regarding claim 7, Mashal discloses an increased relative pressure at one force sensor in the plurality of face mask sensors is used to provide an indication of a potential injury (¶0294). Note additionally the intent of Mashal to mitigate injuries caused by face mask wear (¶¶0010-0013).
Regarding claim 8, Mashal discloses the second sensor is an under-head sensor configured to be located on an opposite side of a head of the patient from the face (Fig. 6c #260; ¶0199).
Regarding claim 9, Mashal discloses the step of determining a relationship of the applied force
Regarding claim 12, Mashal discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 22; ¶¶0283-0292) storing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more electronic processors causes the one or more electronic processors to carry out the method of claim 1 (see above).
Regarding claim 13, Mashal discloses a ventilation assessment system, comprising: a plurality of face mask sensors (Figs. 5 or 6a any of #220, 222, 224, 226; ¶¶0187-0190) configured to be situated between a face mask (Figs. 5 or 6a are a face mask; ¶¶0187-0190) and a face of a patient to measure an applied force between the face mask and the face of the patient; and an under-head sensor (Fig. 6c #260; ¶0199) configured to measure an overall force applied to the patient. The claim is afforded full priority benefit dating to 24 Aug 2023.
Regarding claim 14, Mashal discloses the plurality of face mask sensors are attached to or integrated into the face mask (Figs. 5 or 6a any of #220, 222, 224, 226; ¶¶0187-0190).
Regarding claim 18, Mashal discloses the plurality of face mask sensors are integrated with a conformational interlayer (e.g. Fig. 11 #502, 504; ¶¶0227-0229).
Regarding claim 19, Mashal discloses the conformational interlayer includes two or more thermoplastic layers (Fig. 11 #502, 504; ¶¶0227-0229) that have a face contour profile (Figs. 13a-13d; ¶¶0245-0248), and the plurality of sensors are sandwiched between the two or more thermoplastic layers (Fig. 11 #506 between #502, 504).
Regarding claim 20, Mashal discloses a face mask (Figs. 5 or 6a are a face mask; ¶¶0187-0190) for a ventilation assessment system, comprising: a nasal bridge sensor (Figs. 5 or 6a #222; ¶0187) configured to measure an applied force across a nasal bridge of a patient (¶¶0187-0190); and a mentum sensor (Figs. 5 or 6a #226; ¶¶0185, 0187 – because the mask extends around the nose and the mouth the sensor 226 will be positioned on the patient’s chin) configured to measure an applied force at a mentum of the patient (¶¶0187-0190), wherein the nasal bridge sensor and the mentum sensor are at least partially aligned with and at least partially overlapping a longitudinal axis of the face mask (Figs. 5 or 6a). The claim is afforded full priority benefit dating to 24 Aug 2023.
Regarding claim 21, Mashal discloses a right zygomatic arch sensor (Figs. 5 or 6a #220; ¶0187; note also the various positions of #232 in Fig. 6a, ¶0190) configured to measure an applied force at a right zygomatic arch of the patient and a left zygomatic arch sensor (Figs. 5 or 6a #224; ¶0187; note also the various positions of #230 in Fig. 6a, ¶0190) configured to measure an applied force at a left zygomatic arch of the patient.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leonard et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0009417).
Regarding claim 20, Leonard discloses a face mask (Fig. 2 #104; ¶0061) for a ventilation assessment system, comprising: a nasal bridge sensor (Fig. 2 #112; ¶0062) configured to measure an applied force across a nasal bridge of a patient (¶0062); and a mentum sensor (Fig. 2 either #118; ¶0062) configured to measure an applied force at a mentum of the patient (¶0062), wherein the nasal bridge sensor and the mentum sensor are at least partially aligned with and at least partially overlapping a longitudinal axis of the face mask (Fig. 2 – longitudinal axis defined just off-center in Fig. 2 through #112 and either #118). The claim is afforded full priority benefit dating to 24 Aug 2023.
Regarding claim 21, Leonard discloses a right zygomatic arch sensor (Fig. 2 right #114; ¶0062) configured to measure an applied force at a right zygomatic arch of the patient and a left zygomatic arch sensor (Fig. 2 left #114; ¶0062) configured to measure an applied force at a left zygomatic arch of the patient.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0009417) in view of Hecox et al. (U.S. Pub. 2009/0163838).
Regarding claim 1, Leonard discloses a method of assessing ventilation, comprising the steps of: receiving a measurement of an applied force between a face mask (Fig. 2 #104; ¶0061) and a face of a patient from a first sensor (Fig. 2 any of #112, 114, 116, 118; ¶¶0061-0062) located at least partially between the face mask and the face of the patient; and contextualizing the measured applied force to provide a graphical user interface (Fig. 4 graph; ¶0069; see also Fig. 11 graph; ¶0072). The claim is afforded full priority benefit dating to 24 Aug 2023.
Leonard fails to disclose receiving a measurement of an overall force applied to the patient from a second sensor; and contextualizing the measured overall force to provide the graphical user interface. It is noted that the second sensor must be distinct from the first sensor and thus an “overall force” in view of Fig. 2 of Leonard would require readings from all of the sensors around the mask periphery. However, at least one of those sensors around the mask periphery must be read as the first sensor earlier recited in the claim.
Hecox teaches a CPR feedback system (Figs. 1-2; ¶0016) including a measurement of an overall force applied to a patient from a sensor (Fig. 1 #120; ¶0022 – load switch that gathers force data). Hecox teaches an under-head sensor which measures an overall force applied to a patient as providing the benefit of supplying feedback on compression strength in relation to feedback on the effectiveness of a CPR provider's methods (¶¶0022, 0024). It is noted that the mask of Leonard is for use with a bag-valve-mask on a human or a training manikin (¶0003) which corresponds to the use of Hecox in CPR (¶0010).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Leonard receiving a measurement of an overall force applied to the patient from a second sensor in order to provide the benefit of supplying feedback on compression strength in relation to feedback on the effectiveness of a CPR provider's methods in view of Hecox.
One of ordinary skill in the art recognizing the Leonard intends to graph the data from all transducers (e.g. Fig. 11 graph) would then have further considered it prima facie obvious to include the second sensor’s overall force in the graphical user interface of Leonard.
Regarding claim 2, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the graphical user interface includes a time series plot of an output from each of the first sensor and the second sensor (Fig. 11; ¶0072).
Regarding claim 3, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the step of accounting for an initial unloaded value of each of the first sensor and the second sensor in the time series plot (¶0072 – normalized).
Regarding claim 4, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious the measurement from the first sensor, the measurement from the second sensor, or the measurements from both of the first sensor and the second sensor are used to provide an indication of a potential airway obstruction. The system of Leonard is used in the context of bag valve mask ventilation, which one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize as at times including patients with an airway obstruction. The data presentation of Leonard from its pressure sensors can be considered under broadest reasonable interpretation to “provide an indication of a potential airway obstruction” as those who are trained in the use of bag valve mask ventilation would be expected to be able to recognize from the visualized data when a potential airway obstruction is occurring. It is noted that the claim provides no detail on how the indication is to be provided.
Regarding claim 5, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the first sensor is one of a plurality of face mask sensors (Fig. 2 #112, 114, 116, 118; ¶¶0061-0062).
Regarding claim 6, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious the steps of comparing each sensor measurement of the plurality of face mask sensors to assess similarity of the applied force across the face mask (e.g. Fig. 11). One of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to mentally consider many possibilities related to the data visually presented in Leonard. One such obvious consideration would be a relative comparison between the values from each individual sensor.
Regarding claim 7, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious an increased relative pressure at one force sensor in the plurality of face mask sensors is used to provide an indication of a potential injury. One of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to mentally consider many possibilities related to the data visually presented in Leonard. Additionally, those who are trained in the use of bag valve mask ventilation would be expected to be able to recognize from the visualized data when a potential injury is occurring. It is noted that the claim provides no detail on how the indication is to be provided.
Regarding claim 8, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and Hecox as incorporated therein further teaches the second sensor is an under-head sensor (Fig. 1 #120; ¶0022) configured to be located on an opposite side of a head of the patient from the face.
Regarding claim 9, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the step of determining a relationship of the applied force
Regarding claim 10, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious the step of adjusting an analysis depending on a one-hand usage pattern or a two-hand usage pattern. Leonard teaches that different grip techniques are known to create different pressure distribution patterns (¶0056). Further, Leonard teaches using a trained machine learning program to make a grip technique determination during its analysis (¶¶0059-0060). While Leonard does not expressly discuss a two-hand usage pattern one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it prima facie obvious to have added a two-hand usage pattern to the other grip techniques already identified by Leonard to improve the trained machine learning program.
Regarding claim 11, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious the step of calculating a force asymmetry index for the graphical user interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to mentally consider many possibilities related to the data visually presented in Leonard. One such obvious consideration would be a relative comparison between either left and right mask side pressure values or top and bottom or mask pressure values, with that mental relative comparison readable on the claimed force asymmetry index. It is noted that the claim does not specify what/who calculates the force asymmetry index or what calculation is used to determine the force asymmetry index.
Regarding claim 12, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (e.g. Fig. 4 #28; ¶0057) storing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more electronic processors causes the one or more electronic processors to carry out the method of claim 1 (see above).
Regarding claim 13, Leonard discloses a ventilation assessment system, comprising: a plurality of face mask sensors (Fig. 2 any of #112, 114, 116, 118; ¶¶0061-0062) configured to be situated between a face mask (Fig. 2 #104; ¶0061) and a face of a patient to measure an applied force between the face mask and the face of the patient. The claim is afforded full priority benefit dating to 24 Aug 2023.
Leonard fails to disclose an under-head sensor configured to measure an overall force applied to the patient.
Hecox teaches a CPR feedback system (Figs. 1-2; ¶0016) including a measurement of an overall force applied to a patient from an under-head sensor (Fig. 1 #120; ¶0022 – load switch that gathers force data). Hecox teaches an under-head sensor which measures an overall force applied to a patient as providing the benefit of supplying feedback on compression strength in relation to feedback on the effectiveness of a CPR provider's methods (¶¶0022, 0024). It is noted that the mask of Leonard is for use with a bag-valve-mask on a human or a training manikin (¶0003) which corresponds to the use of Hecox in CPR (¶0010).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Leonard an under-head sensor configured to measure an overall force applied to the patient in order to provide the benefit of supplying feedback on compression strength in relation to feedback on the effectiveness of a CPR provider's methods in view of Hecox.
Regarding claim 14, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the plurality of face mask sensors are attached to or integrated into the face mask (Fig. 2; ¶0062).
Regarding claim 15, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the patient is a manikin (¶0056) and the plurality of face mask sensors are integrated into or onto the face of the infant manikin (¶0055 – the pressure transducers can be provided on the training manikin).
Leonard fails to explicitly teach an infant manikin one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it prima facie obvious that medical manikins come in different sizes to represent different human patient populations. The teachings of Leonard are suitable to be obviously applied to any of those different human patient populations, to include an infant size.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashal et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0065784) in view of Leonard et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0009417).
Regarding claim 2, Mashal fails to disclose the graphical user interface includes a time series plot of an output from each of the first sensor and the second sensor.
Leonard teaches a face mask (Fig. 2 #104; ¶0061) including pressure sensors (Fig. 2 #112, 114, 116, 118; ¶¶0061-0062) and teaches using a graphical user interface to output a time series plot from each sensor (Fig. 11; ¶00072). Leonard teaches a time series plot as providing the benefit of supplying real time ongoing data presentation to help with training either of a human or a statistical model (¶¶0072-0073).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Mashal the graphical user interface includes a time series plot of an output from each of the first sensor and the second sensor in order to provide the benefit of supplying real time ongoing data presentation to help with training either of a human or a statistical model in view of Leonard.
Regarding claim 3, Mashal teaches the invention as modified above and Leonard as incorporated therein further teaches the step of accounting for an initial unloaded value of each of the first sensor and the second sensor in the time series plot (¶0072 – normalized).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashal et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0065784).
Regarding claim 11, Mashal fails to explicitly disclose the step of calculating a force asymmetry index for the graphical user interface.
However, Mashal provides clearly visual indication of differences between either left and right mask side pressure values or top and bottom or mask pressure values (e.g. Figs. 18-19g). One of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to mentally consider many possibilities related to the data visually presented in Mashal. One such obvious consideration would be a relative comparison between either left and right mask side pressure values or top and bottom or mask pressure values, with that mental relative comparison readable on the claimed force asymmetry index. It is noted that the claim does not specify what/who calculates the force asymmetry index or what calculation is used to determine the force asymmetry index.
The claim thus fails to patentably distinguish over Mashal.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0009417) in view of Hecox et al. (U.S. Pub. 2009/0163838) and further in view of Mashal et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0065784).
Regarding claim 18, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above but fails to teach the plurality of face mask sensors are integrated with a conformational interlayer.
Mashal teaches a face mask (Figs. 5 or 6a are a face mask; ¶¶0187-0190) including a plurality of face mask sensors (Figs. 5 or 6a any of #220, 222, 224, 226; ¶¶0187-0190) to measure an applied force between the face mask and a face of a patient. Mashal further teaches the plurality of face mask sensors are integrated with a conformational interlayer (e.g. Fig. 11 #502, 504; ¶¶0227-0229). Mashal teaches a conformational interlayer as providing the benefit of using conductive layers to sandwich a dielectric layer when forming a versatile force sensor for use with a face mask (¶¶0227-0229).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in the modified Leonard the plurality of face mask sensors are integrated with a conformational interlayer in order to provide the benefit of using conductive layers to sandwich a dielectric layer when forming a versatile force sensor for use with a face mask in view of Mashal.
Regarding claim 19, Leonard teaches the invention as modified above and Mashal as incorporated therein further teaches the conformational interlayer includes two or more thermoplastic layers (Fig. 11 #502, 504; ¶¶0227-0229) that have a face contour profile (Figs. 13a-13d; ¶¶0245-0248), and the plurality of sensors are sandwiched between the two or more thermoplastic layers (Fig. 11 #506 between #502, 504).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, neither Leonard nor Hecox teaches or suggests the under-head sensor is integrated into or onto a head of the infant manikin. There is no consideration in either reference of a sensor to measure overall applied force being specifically integrated into or onto a head of the infant manikin.
No other prior art is found in the art of medical manikins which teaches or suggests use of the claimed under-head sensor integrated into or onto a head of a manikin for measuring overall applied force.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is found allowable based upon the above stated interpretation of the claim as dependent on claim 16 in response to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references. Regarding the independent claims further attention is specifically drawn to: Stevens et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0118500; force pressure sensors around mask of Fig. 6) and Nadkarni et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0333548; set of six pressure transducers around mask interface and visual display of mask fit – e.g. Figs. 1, 5 & 8A-10E).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights