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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicants’ arguments filed on 07/31/2026 have been fully considered. Examiner asserts that the amended limitations would integrate the judicial exception into practical application. For this reason, the Rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicants’ arguments filed on 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
While not necessarily unclear, it is conceivable that the following terms could be interpreted in ways other than the manner in which they are interpreted herein. Accordingly, Examiner makes note of the following interpretations for the record.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “insertable cardiac monitor”, is being interpreted as a device implanted under the skin (subcutaneously) that is capable of monitoring/recording heart activity.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “one or more bacterial sensors”, is being interpreted as any sensor or combination of sensors capable of detecting the presence of a bacterial infection.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In re claim 11,
The limitation “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to at least one of…” should read “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to…”
The limitation “control the implantable medical device to deploy one or more biochemical or bacterial sensors…” should read “control the implantable medical device to deploy the one or more biochemical or bacterial sensors…”
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claim 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first instruction”. Examiner believes Applicant may have intended to cancel claim 19 (as was done for essentially identical claim 2). However, in the event that cancelation of claim 19 was not intended, claim 19 will be interpreted as requiring the processing circuitry to output “a first instruction” to the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 14, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur (US 2017/0281097), in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076344), in view of Lee et al. (US 8,583,224), in view of Farra (US 10,441,765).
In re claim 1, Thakur discloses a medical device system (abstract, FIG. 1) comprising:
an implantable medical device (110) configured to
sense one or more physiological signals (FIG. 6: 610; Examiner notes “first and second physiological signals” are sensed via sensor circuits 210)
determine first sensor data (620, “first...signal metrics”) based on the one or more physiological signals (FIG. 2); and
processing circuitry (FIG. 2: 220, 230, 240, 250) configured to:
receive the first sensor data (FIG. 2: indicated by lines connecting boxes 222 to 242 and box 224 to 244);
determine, based on the first sensor data, a likelihood (630, “cardiac risk indication”; Examiner notes likelihood is determined by 230; [0091]) that a heart failure decompensation event of a patient is impending [0091];
compare the likelihood to a first threshold (occurs at dotted box surrounding 640, 650 shown in greater detail in FIG. 8; Examiner notes threshold comparison occurs at step 840 which is described in detail in [0102]) ; and
based on the likelihood satisfying the first threshold (“YES” in response to box 840), control the implantable medical device or another implantable medical device (670, [0096])
Thakur does not disclose the processing circuitry being configured to
control the implantable medical device or another implantable medical device to automatically deploy at least one of one or more biochemical sensors or one or more bacterial sensors by opening a physical barrier that initially keeps the at least one of the one or more biochemical sensors or the one or more bacterial sensors inactive
Libbus discloses a medical device system (FIG. 1A) that, like Thakur, monitors a patient to detect impending cardiac decompensation (abstract). As shown in FIG. 2A, the medical device system calculates a likelihood (250, 255 “Set Flag”; [0095]) that a patient will experience a heart decomposition event in the future, based data extracted from a plurality of physiological signals (205, 210, 215, 220, 225). Upon determining that a patient will experience impending cardiac decomposition ([0095]: “Flag” having “a value of one triggers an alarm”), instructions are provided to the medical device system to both initiate communication with the patient (260) and control an medical device (100) of the medical device system to measure additional physiological signals (265; [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing circuitry of Thakur to be configured to control the implantable medical device or another implantable medical device to automatically deploy one or more sensors, as taught by Libbus. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would provide additional data that could be transmitted to either the patient or heath care provider to help accurately diagnose the patient in real time ([0097], Libbus). Accordingly, such a modification would yield the processing circuitry being configured to “control the implantable medical device or another implantable medical device to automatically deploy at least one of one or more biochemical sensors or one or more bacterial sensors”, given that the medical device system of Thakur includes both biochemical and bacterial sensors (Thakur, [0053]: “blood chemical sensor”, “temperature sensor”). Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a temperature sensor would be considered as a “bacterial sensor” given that it is capable of detecting the presence of a bacterial infection, as evidenced by Lee (abstract; FIG. 6: 336 is a temperature sensor (see col. 6, lines 56-64) used to indicate potential infection (col. 10, lines 30-36)).
Regarding the one or more bacterial or one or more biochemical sensors being deployed “by opening a physical barrier that initially keeps the at least one of the one or more biochemical sensors or the one or more bacterial sensors inactive”
Farra discloses an implantable device (col. 1, lines 14-18) that includes one or more containment reservoirs (example shown in FIG. 4: 344) capable of confining a sensor element for later exposure or release (col. 1, lines 16-18; abstract: “contain a drug formulation or a sensor element”). As disclosed by Farra, each of the one or more containment reservoirs contains a reservoir cap (348) which is configured to be electrically, mechanically, or electrochemically activated to open (col. 6, lines 26-28 and lines 33-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable medical device of the proposed combination to have the one or more biochemical or bacterial sensors be confined in a closed containment reservoir, as taught by Farra. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would protect the one or more biochemical or bacterial sensors against degradation. Accordingly, such a modification would yield the one or more bacterial or biochemical sensors being deployed by “opening a physical barrier that initially keeps the at least one of the one or more biochemical sensors or the one or more bacterial sensors inactive”.
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive at least one of
biochemical sensor data from the one or more biochemical sensors (apparent as [0053]: “blood chemical sensors” would receive “blood chemical” physiological data) or
bacterial sensor data from the one or more bacterial sensors; and
update the likelihood that a heart failure decompensation event is impending (FIG. 9) based on at least one of
the biochemical sensor data (FIG. 9, shows an in-depth process of determining “a cardiac risk indication”, the cardiac risk indication (final output indicated by arrow on bottom “to 640”) is updated based on at least a third physiological signal (932, 933) which could be measured by any of the sensors described in [0053] including “blood chemical sensor”) or
the bacterial sensor data.
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
compare the likelihood to a second threshold (840; cardiac risk indication determined by process illustrated in FIG. 9 (indicated by bottom arrow of FIG. 9 near “to 640”) is fed into process of determining a worsening cardiac event, that is the process represented by the dotted box in FIG. 6 shown in greater detail in FIG. 8. Examiner notes that 840 in FIG. 8 illustrates “a second threshold” comparison) and
based on the updated likelihood meeting the second threshold, generate a first indication for output to a user (FIG. 8: “TO 660”, FIG. 6: 660, “generate an alert for the detected physiological event”; [0094]).
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur), wherein the first indication comprises at least one of:
an indication to seek medical attention;
an indication of the updated likelihood that the heart failure decomposition event is impending ([0094]: “additional information that may be displayed includes…risk indications”; or
a proposed treatment of the patient.
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to output the first indication to the user [0094].
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur), wherein the implantable medical device comprises an insertable cardiac monitor ([0046]: “The AMD 110 may alternatively or additional include subcutaneously implanted devices such as a subcutaneous ICD or a subcutaneous diagnostic device”; regarding the limitations “insertable cardiac monitor”, see above section “Claim Interpretation”).
In re claim 9, the proposed combination does not yield, further comprising
one or more boluses of anti-biotic medication disposed on the implantable medical device,
wherein the one or more bacterial sensors are configured to generate bacterial sensor data,
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine that the bacterial sensor data indicated a bacterial infection; and
control the implantable medical device to release at least one of the one or more boluses of anti-biotic medication based on the determination that the bacterial sensor data indicates the bacterial infection.
Lee discloses an analogous implantable monitoring device (FIG. 6: 320) that, like the proposed combination, monitors a patient’s physiological parameters (FIG. 10, 602) to determine whether or not a patient is experiencing a potential life-threatening event, specifically an infection (604, “infection detected”). The patient’s physiological parameters are monitored using one or more sensors (col. 9, lines 37-39). As disclosed by Lee, the specific type of sensors can include but are not limited to temperature sensors, lactate concentration sensors, PH concentration sensors, potassium ion concentration sensors, sodium ion concentration sensors and glucose concentration sensors (col. 7, lines 4-27). The implantable monitoring device is not only capable of determining whether or not the patient has an infection but can also be configured to provide treatment (abstract). In some examples, treatment includes instructing the implantable medical device to release antimicrobial agents (col. 9, lines 46-50) located on or in the implantable medical device (col. 9, lines 52-54). The antimicrobial agents include antibiotics, silver ions and the like (col. 9, lines 50-52). As emphasized by Lee, having an implantable medical device with the ability to detect infection is crucial given the risk of infection that comes with implantation (col. 1, lines 18-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the following modifications, as taught by Lee:
modify the proposed combination to have one or more boluses of anti-biotic medication disposed on the implantable medical device,
modify the one or more biosensors of the proposed combination to be configured to generate bacterial sensor data
modify the processing circuitry of the proposed combination to be configured to determine that the bacterial sensor data indicated a bacterial infection and
modify the processing circuitry to control the implantable medical device to release at least one of the one or more boluses of anti-biotic medication based on the determination that the bacterial sensor data indicates the bacterial infection.
One would have been motivated to make these modifications because doing so would allow clinicians/patients to detect and treat infections at an early stage, that is, when non-surgical therapeutic interventions are most effective (Lee, col. 1, lines 43-47). Moreover, such a modification is crucial with implantable devices given the increased risk of infection that comes with implantation (col. 1, lines 18-31).
In re claim 14, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur)
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to ([0058]: “risk stratifier circuit 230 may produce”):
generate a score ([0058]: “risk indication”) based on at least one of first sensor data [0059], biochemical sensor data, or bacterial sensor data; and
output the score to a clinician [0059, 0072];
In re claim 18, see above (In re claim 1).
In re claim 20, see above (In re claim 1).
The proposed combination also yields: Non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions (Thakur, [0112]).
In re claim 21, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Farra), wherein the physical barrier (shown in FIG. 4 indicated by reference number 348) comprises at least one of a weld, a door, or a foil (col. 6, lines 29-32: “reservoir cap” is a “door” given that it acts as a physical barrier used to open and close an entrance to another space).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur (US 2017/0281097), in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076344), in view of Lee et al. (US 8,583,224), in view of Farra (US 10,441,765), in view of Sun et al. (US 2019/0133457).
In re claim 8, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur) wherein the insertable cardiac monitor comprises
a housing (FIG. 1: housing of 110) configured for subcutaneous implantation in a patient ([0046]: “AMD 110 may alternatively or additionally include subcutaneously implanted devices”) the housing having
a length between a first end (left most end of 110) and a second end (right most end of 110)
a width (distance from top of 110 to bottom of 110) less than the length (apparent, FIG. 1)
a depth less than the width (FIG. 1; apparent given that the device is configured to be implanted subcutaneously)
The proposed combination does not yield the housing having:
a length -between 40 millimeters (mm) and 60 (mm) between a first end and a second end,
a first electrode at or proximate to the first end; and
a second electrode at or proximate to the second end,
wherein the insertable cardiac monitor is configured to sense at least one of the one or more physiological signals via the first electrode and the second electrode.
Sun discloses an implantable cardiac monitor (abstract, Figure 1: 16) that, like the proposed combination, monitors a patient for potential heart failure (abstract). As shown in Figure 1, the implantable cardiac monitor is intended for subcutaneous implantation at a site near the patient’s heart (12, [0035]). The implantable cardiac monitor includes two electrodes (14), positioned on opposite sides of the housing (Figure 1), used to sense/detect cardiac signals [0041, 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable cardiac monitor of the proposed combination to position the one or more electrodes on the housing instead of the leads, as taught by Sun. One would have been motivated to make this modification because both are known electrode locations (Sun, [0035]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose an electrode location that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “wherein the insertable cardiac monitor is configured to sense at least one of the one or more physiological signals via the first electrode and the second electrode”, given that the electrodes of the proposed combination where responsible for sensing at least one of the one or more physiological signals, prior to the proposed modification described above (Thakur, [0048, [0053]).
Regarding the housing having “a first electrode at or proximate to the first end” and “a second electrode at or proximate to the second end”, for substantially the same reasons as described above (In paragraph 61), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the implantable cardiac monitor of the proposed combination to having a first electrode at or proximate to the first end and a second electrode at or proximate to the second end, as taught by Sun (Figure 1, [0035]).
Regarding the limitations “a length -between 40 millimeters (mm) and 60 (mm) between a first end and a second end”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a length of the implantable cardiac device be between 40 mm to 60 mm, since it has been held that whether the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.26.
Claims 11-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur (US 2017/0281097), in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076344), in view of Lee et al. (US 8,583,224), in view of Farra (US 10,441,765), in view of Mann et al. (US 2006/0149324).
In re claim 11, the proposed combination yields, wherein processing circuitry is configured to at least one of
control the implantable medical device to deploy one or more biochemical or bacterial sensors (see proposed modification above In re claim 1).
The proposed combination does not yield, deploying one or more biochemical or bacterial sensors according to a schedule.
Mann discloses an implantable device (Fig. 4), that like the proposed combination, is designed to detect whether or not a patient will experience an impending heart failure decomposition event [0114]. As discussed in Mann, if it is determined that the patient is likely to experience an impending heart failure decomposition event, instructions to establish communication with the patient are provided to the implantable medical device [0297]. The type of information communicated to the patient can include general therapy recommendations, instructions suggesting the patient take bed rest, instructions suggesting the patient make a doctor's appointment or go to the emergency room, and/or instructions to the patient to measure additional physiological parameters [0299]. Mann additionally discloses having the implantable medical device continually instruct the patient to perform an updated cardiac status measurement based on a schedule/template provided by a clinician [0322].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing circuitry of the proposed combination to deploy the one or more biochemical or bacterial sensors according to a schedule, as taught by Mann. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would enable continuous monitoring of the patient’s condition without the need for the clinician’s moment to moment intervention (Mann, [0107]).
In re claim 12, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mann), wherein the schedule is at least one of:
predetermined;
programmed by a clinician [0322];
based on a change in pattern of at least one of sensed biochemical parameters, bacterial parameters, or physiological parameters over time; or
determined by the processing circuitry executing a machine learning model.
In re claim 13, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive at least one of biochemical sensor data from the one or more biochemical sensors [0053] or bacterial sensor data from the one or more bacterial sensors; and
generate a second indication for output to a clinician [0019; 0072], the second indication comprising at least one of the biochemical sensor data [0094] or the bacterial sensor data.
In re claim 19, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur) further comprising outputting, by the processing circuitry, information to the user.
The proposed combination does not yield, the processing circuitry outputting the first instruction to the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information output by the proposed combination to be a first instruction, as taught by Mann (see paragraph 48 above). One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would provide the user with actionable steps they can take to manage/correct their current condition (Mann, [0305]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur (US 2017/0281097), in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076344), in view of Lee et al. (US 8,583,224), in view of Farra (US 10,441,765), in view of Haddad et al. (US 2020/0353250).
In re claim 15, the proposed combination yields wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: output a third indication for review by the clinician (Thakur, [0019, 0072]).
The proposed combination does not yield the processing circuitry being configured to
compare the score to a previous score;
determine that the score is different than the previous score; and
output a third indication for review by the clinician the third indication comprising at least one of
information relating to a change in the score from the previous score,
a source of the change in the score from the previous score, or
suggested treatment options.
Haddad discloses an implantable medical device that, like the proposed combination, uses a plurality sensors to monitor a patient’s physical health (abstract). Similar to the proposed combination, the implantable medical device uses physiological data collected from the plurality of sensors to determine a risk score of the patient [0094]. As disclosed by Haddad, processing circuitry of the implantable monitoring device is also capable of identifying changes in a patient’s risk score and initiating contact with a physician [0190].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing circuitry of the proposed combination to be further configured to compare the score to a previous score and determined that the score is different than the previous score, as taught by Haddad. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would provide another way for the implantable medical device to evaluate the efficacy of administered treatments/therapies (Haddad, [0047, 0130]). Accordingly, such a modification would yield “the third indication comprising information relating to a change in the score from the previous score”, given that the proposed combination was capable of outputting a score and related information to a clinician prior to the modification (Thakur, [0019, 0072, 0094]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur (US 2017/0281097), in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076344), in view of Lee et al. (US 8,583,224), in view of Farra (US 10,441,765), in view of An et al. (US 2015/0126878).
In re claim 16, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur)
wherein the first sensor data comprises a plurality of sensed physiological parameters (610, “SENSE FIRST AND SECOND PHYSIOLOGICAL SIGNALS”)
wherein as part of determining the likelihood that a heart failure decompensation event of a patient is impending, the processing circuitry is configured to:
compare each of the plurality of sensed physiological parameters to parameter specific thresholds (620; [0063, 0064]: “relative difference” of the signal metrics from “a baseline”; Examiner notes comparison for “first” [0063] and “second” [0064] “physiological signals” is performed by circuit elements 242 and 244 respectively.) ;
apply a probabilistic model ([0065]: “a decision tree” generated by 246) to the results of the comparisons (examiner notes that the “results of the comparisons” are the outputs from 242, 244 that are fed into 246) .
The proposed combination does not yield the processing circuitry being configured to:
apply a Bayesian probabilistic model to results of the comparisons
An discloses an analogous medical device system (FIG. 1) that, like the proposed combination, is capable of identifying if a patient is at an elevated risk for experiencing a future heart failure event (abstract). As disclosed by An, identifying if a patient is at an elevated risk for experiencing a future heart event ([0066]: generate a “composite risk indictor”) involves using a probabilistic model [0066]. Examples of probabilistic models used to make such a determination include, but are not limited to: decision trees, neural networks, and Bayesian networks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination to apply a Bayesian network, as taught by An. One would have been motivated to make this modification because Bayesian networks are a known known alternative to the decision trees used by the proposed combination (An, [0066]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the type of probabilistic model that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield the processing circuitry being configured to “apply a Bayesian probabilistic model to the results of the comparisons”.
In re claim 17, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Thakur), wherein the plurality of sensed physiological parameters comprise at least two of ([0054]: “Examples of the physiological signals sensed by sensor circuits 210 may include…”)
a fluid index,
patient activity ([0054]: “physical activity signal”)
atrial tachycardia (AT)/atrial fibrillation (AF) burden,
ventricular rate during AT/AF,
percentage of ventricular pacing,
shocks,
treated ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation,
night ventricular rate,
heart rate variability,
heart sounds ([0054]: “a heart sound (HS signal)”), or
lung sounds.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights