Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 and 22 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of March 24, 2026 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on July 24, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 3, 7-9, 18, 19, and 22.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-19 and 22 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §112
These rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
Starting on page 12 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that each of independent claims 1 and 22 require the following limitations which allegedly do not recite a judicial exception:
-calculate a Ct difference and/or count difference between single-detection and concurrent-detection cases;
-determine whether the calculated difference satisfies a predetermined reference value;
-dynamically arrange those regions based on the calculated differences; and
-conditionally apply identifiable marks to selected display regions based on the
determination result.
The Examiner initially notes that the present claims do not recite "dynamically" arranging the regions based on the calculated differences but instead merely recite how the regions are arranged in ascending/descending order based on the differences.
Furthermore, a person can practically in their mind with pen and paper calculate a Ct difference and/or count difference between single-detection and concurrent-detection cases; determine whether the calculated difference satisfies a predetermined reference value; display regions on paper with the regions arranged based on the calculated differences; and apply identifiable marks to selected display regions based on the determination result ("mental processes"). See below rejection.
On the bottom of page 12 to the top of page 13 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that the processor automatically performing the various calculations is an "additional element" that integrates the judicial exception into a "practical application." The Examiner disagree because the various calculations are all practically mentally-performable as set forth in the rejection below and the high-level recitation of the processor performing the calculations just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
On page 13, Applicant then takes the position that arranging a plurality of display regions in ascending or descending order based on CT differences and/or count differences and adding an identifiable mark (e.g., graph highlighting or the addition of text, tables, graphs, or images) when the calculated difference satisfies a predetermined threshold as called for in the present claims allegedly "[goes] far beyond merely displaying information" but instead "[constitutes] specific dynamic UI control features." The Examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite "dynamic" control/arrangement of displayed information (e.g., such as changing the displayed information over time based on inputs/calculations) but instead merely call for displaying certain information (e.g., the calculated differences and an "identifiable mark") in a particular manner (e.g., in certain "regions" and arranged in ascending/descending order based on the differences"). A person can practically display such information with pen and paper at the claimed high level of generality. Furthermore, the present specification does not even disclose the word "dynamic" a single time.
At pages 13-14 of the Amendment, Applicant then asserts that independent claims 1 and 22 enable a computer to detect target viruses exhibiting clinically significant differences between single-detection and concurrent-detection cases; identify target viruses suspected of viral amplification inhibition; automatically arrange those targets according to priority; and visually emphasize those targets to provide clinicians with immediate insights which allegedly improves the functional efficiency of a molecular diagnostic visualization interface by enabling users to obtain meaningful insights from large-scale diagnostic datasets without performing manual comparative analysis. However, other than the high level recitations of the "processor" and the "screen," the various limitations are practically performable in the human mind ("mental processes") and/or represent mathematical calculations ("mathematical concepts").
On page 14 of the Amendment, Applicant then asserts "Amended claims 1 and 22 require the processor to perform real-time comparative calculations across a plurality of target viruses and a plurality of examinees, calculate differences between single-detection and concurrent-detection populations, determine significance using a reference value, dynamically rearrange multiple display regions, and selectively apply visual emphasis based on those determinations."
The Examiner initially notes that independent claims 1 and 22 do not recite "real-time" calculations or "dynamic" rearrangement of display regions. Why is Applicant asserting limitations that are not actually recited in the claims? Doing so just confuses the issues. Furthermore, and as reiterated throughout this action, most or all of such limitations are practically performable in the human mind ("mental processes") and/or represent mathematical calculations ("mathematical concepts").
Applicant then asserts "The Specification expressly contemplates implementation using large-scale diagnostic datasets involving numerous examinees and numerous target viruses. (Specification, para. [0094]-[0097], [0115]-[0116], and [0123]-[0126].) Such processor-driven operations cannot practically be performed manually in real time within the diagnostic environment contemplated by the Specification." In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., large-scale diagnostic datasets involving "numerous" examinees and target viruses) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant then recites "Moreover, the claims do not merely calculate an abstract difference. Rather, the calculated results are integrated with a concrete hardware-based control operation, specifically, the dynamic reconfiguration of the user interface. Consequently, the claims transform any alleged abstract concept into a practical diagnostic tool capable of providing clinicians with immediate and actionable insights." Once again, neither the claims nor the specification recite/disclose any sort of "dynamic reconfiguration of the user interface" as alleged by Applicant but instead merely recite displaying particular information in particular regions using a generic processor and a generic screen.
Applicant then asserts "Further, the recited dynamic comparison, prioritization, sorting, and conditional visualization of numerous target viruses across large-scale molecular diagnostic datasets is practically impossible for humans to perform manually in real time and therefore constitutes a meaningful limitation beyond a mental process." Once again, the claims do not recite "dynamic" analysis/display steps, use of "large-scale" molecular diagnostic datasets," or performance in "real-time." Furthermore the limitations are practically performable in the human mind ("mental processes") and/or represent mathematical calculations ("mathematical concepts") and/or are additional limitations that do not provide a practical application of or significantly more than the at least one abstract idea as discussed herein.
On page 15 of the Amendment, Applicant asserts that independent claims 1 and 22 do not recite insignificant post-solution activity. While the Examiner is not asserting any additional limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, the Examiner is asserting the additional limitations do not provide a practical application of or significantly more than the at least one abstract idea for the various reasons discussed herein.
On pages 15-16 of the Amendment, Applicant then asserts that the combination of the above-noted limitations provides "significantly more" than the at least one abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees for at least all the reasons in support of why the additional limitations do not provide a "practical application" of the at least one abstract idea.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
These rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 24, 2026, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein (i.e., the Korean Office Action) has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 24-25, it appears that "in respective" should be changed to --in a respective--.
In claim 22, lines 26-27, it appears that "in respective" should be changed to --in a respective--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claim 22 is directed to a computer device (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 22 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 22 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 22 recites:
A computer device comprising:
a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
obtaining, by the processor, diagnostic results performed on a plurality of examinees in order to detect a respiratory virus or a human papilloma virus (HPV); wherein the respiratory virus comprises at least two types of respiratory viruses as a target virus and the HPV comprises at least two types of HPV subtypes as a target virus;
calculating, by the processor, from the diagnostic results, at least one of: (a) a first cycle threshold (Ct) distribution range obtained from a specific target virus in a single detection case where only the specific target virus among a plurality of target viruses is detected, and a second Ct distribution range obtained from the specific target virus in a concurrent detection case where one or more other target virus is detected together with the specific target virus; and (b) a count of a first examinees corresponding to the single detection case among the plurality of examinees, and a count of a second examinees corresponding to the concurrent detection case among the plurality of examinees;
calculating, by the processor, a difference comprising at least one of: (a) a CT difference between a representative value of the first CT distribution range and a representative value of the second CT distribution range; and (b) a count difference between the count of the first examinees and the count of the second examinees; and determining, by the processor, whether the calculated difference is not less than a predetermined reference value
controlling, by the processor, display of detection case information comprising at least one of: (a) the first Ct distribution range and the second Ct distribution range; and (b) the count of the first examinees and the count of the second examinees, in respective region corresponding to the specific target virus on a single screen of the computer device or a user terminal; wherein the single screen provides a plurality of regions corresponding to the plurality of target viruses; wherein each region displays the detection case information calculated when each of the plurality of target viruses is applied to the specific target virus,
controlling, by the processor, the plurality of regions to be arranged in ascending or descending order based on at least one of the CT difference and the count difference; and
controlling, by the processor, to add an identifiable mark to a region, among the plurality of regions, corresponding to one or more target viruses for which the calculated difference is not less than the reference value; wherein the addition of the identifiable mark comprises (a) highlighting, in a preset color, a graph displayed in the corresponding region or (b) adding in the form of a text, a table, a graph, or an image to the corresponding region.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite "mental processes" because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a medical professional could review PCR cycle threshold values for a specific target virus for a plurality of subjects where either only the specific target virus is detected (first type of subjects) or where both the specific target virus and one or more other target viruses are directed (second type of subjects); calculate (e.g., through basic mental calculations) cycle threshold distribution ranges and subject counts for each of the first and second types of subjects; calculate a difference including a CT difference between a representative values of the first and second CT distribution ranges or a count difference between the counts of the first and second examinees; determine whether the calculated difference is not less than a predetermined reference value; display (e.g., via writing down on paper) the first/second distribution ranges and/or the counts of the first/second examinees in respective regions corresponding to the specific target viruses (where each region displays the detection case information calculated when each of the plurality of target viruses is applied to the specific target virus) in ascending or descending order based on the CT and/or count difference; and add (e.g., with a pen/marker/etc.) an identifiable mark to one of the target viruses regions for which the calculated difference is not less than the reference value (e.g., via highlighting, in a preset color, a graph displayed in the corresponding region or adding in the form of a text, a table, a graph, or an image to the corresponding region).
These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found to be "mental processes" in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, many of the foregoing underlined limitations recite "mathematical concepts" because they represent mathematical calculations similar to performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC (898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-17 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claim 2 calls for filtering the diagnostic results by applying a predetermined first condition for at least one of a period, a season, a region, an age and a target virus, and a molecular diagnostic product, wherein the diagnostic results in the calculating, is the filtered diagnostic results. These steps are practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 3 calls for displaying the first and second Ct distribution ranges in the region corresponding to the specific target virus which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 4 calls for displaying at least one of a median value, a first quartile, a third quartile, an average value and a mode value is displayed in each of the first Ct distribution range and the second Ct distribution range which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 5 calls for displaying at least one of an interquartile range (IQR) indicating a difference between the first quartile and the third quartile, a minimum value calculated based on the first quartile and the IQR, and a maximum value calculated based on the third quartile and the IQR in each of the first Ct distribution range and the second Ct distribution range which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 6 calls for displaying the first Ct distribution range and the second Ct distribution range in a box plot method which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 7 calls for displaying the counts of the first and second examinees in the region corresponding to the specific target virus which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 9 recites how adding the identifiable mark includes, for at least one target virus in which the count of the second examinees is not less than the reference value than the count of the first examinees among the plurality of target viruses, adding an identifiable mark when a representative value of the second Ct distribution range is not less than the representative value of the first CT distribution range which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 10 calls for displaying information about one or more other target viruses detected together with the specific target virus in the concurrent detection case which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 11 recites details regarding the information about the one or more other target viruses (that is displayed along with the specific target virus) including (a) a name of each of the one or more other target viruses detected together with the specific target virus; and (b) a count of examinees and/or a Ct distribution range in the concurrent detection case in which each of the one or more other target viruses are detected together with the specific target virus. Again, displaying such information along with the specific target virus is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 12 recites details regarding the information about the one or more other target viruses (that is displayed along with the specific target virus) including (a) names of a plurality of combinations for the one or more other target viruses detected together with the specific target virus, and (b) a count of examinees and/or a Ct distribution range in a concurrent detection case in which each of the plurality of combinations are detected together with the specific target virus. Again, displaying such information along with the specific target virus is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 14 calls for displaying information about the concurrent detection case of the specific target virus and information about the concurrent detection case of additional specific target virus which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 15 calls for displaying information about a selected one of the specific target viruses which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 16 recites how the at least two types of the respiratory viruses are selected from the group consisting of influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), adenovirus, enterovirus, parainfluenza virus (Ply), metapneumovirus (MPV), bocavirus, rhinovirus, and coronavirus which just further defines the "mental processes" discussed previously.
-Claim 17 recites how the at least two types of HPV subtypes are selected from the group consisting of HPV-16, -18, -26, -30, -31, -34, -35, -39, -45, -51, -52, -53, -56, -58, -59, -61, -66, -67, -68, -69, -70, and -73 belonging to a high-risk (HR) group which just further defines the "mental processes" discussed previously.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A computer device comprising:
a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
obtaining, by the processor, diagnostic results performed on a plurality of examinees in order to detect a respiratory virus or a human papilloma virus (HPV); wherein the respiratory virus comprises at least two types of respiratory viruses as a target virus and the HPV comprises at least two types of HPV subtypes as a target virus;
calculating, by the processor, from the diagnostic results, at least one of: (a) a first cycle threshold (Ct) distribution range obtained from a specific target virus in a single detection case where only the specific target virus among a plurality of target viruses is detected, and a second Ct distribution range obtained from the specific target virus in a concurrent detection case where one or more other target virus is detected together with the specific target virus; and (b) a count of a first examinees corresponding to the single detection case among the plurality of examinees, and a count of a second examinees corresponding to the concurrent detection case among the plurality of examinees;
calculating, by the processor, a difference comprising at least one of: (a) a CT difference between a representative value of the first CT distribution range and a representative value of the second CT distribution range; and (b) a count difference between the count of the first examinees and the count of the second examinees; and determining, by the processor, whether the calculated difference is not less than a predetermined reference value
controlling, by the processor, display of detection case information comprising at least one of: (a) the first Ct distribution range and the second Ct distribution range; and (b) the count of the first examinees and the count of the second examinees, in respective region corresponding to the specific target virus on a single screen of the computer device or a user terminal; wherein the single screen provides a plurality of regions corresponding to the plurality of target viruses; wherein each region displays the detection case information calculated when each of the plurality of target viruses is applied to the specific target virus,
controlling, by the processor, the plurality of regions to be arranged in ascending or descending order based on at least one of the CT difference and the count difference; and
controlling, by the processor, to add an identifiable mark to a region, among the plurality of regions, corresponding to one or more target viruses for which the calculated difference is not less than the reference value; wherein the addition of the identifiable mark comprises (a) highlighting, in a preset color, a graph displayed in the corresponding region or (b) adding in the form of a text, a table, a graph, or an image to the corresponding region.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the computer device including memory, instruction, and processor and controlling display of the various information in the single screen of the computer device or a user terminal, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 22 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 22 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Claim 8 calls for displaying the first and second Ct distributions and the first and second counts of examinees on respective first and second screens which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 13 recites how controlling the display of the information about the one or more other target viruses is performed corresponding to selection of a screen region displaying the second Ct distribution range or the count of the second examinees which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 18 recites how the diagnostic results are generated by using the identical qPCR device and the identical same extraction method which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claim 19 recites how the diagnostic results are generated by using the identical qPCR device, the identical extraction method, the identical target signaling mechanism, and the identical polymerase mastermix which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 22 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the computer device including memory, instruction, and processor and controlling display of the various information in the single screen of the computer device or a user terminal, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Claim 8 calls for displaying the first and second Ct distributions and the first and second counts of examinees on respective first and second screens which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 13 recites how controlling the display of the information about the one or more other target viruses is performed corresponding to selection of a screen region displaying the second Ct distribution range or the count of the second examinees which just amounts to using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 18 recites how the diagnostic results are generated by using the identical qPCR device and the identical same extraction method which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
-Claim 19 recites how the diagnostic results are generated by using the identical qPCR device, the identical extraction method, the identical target signaling mechanism, and the identical polymerase mastermix which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, claims 1-19 and 22 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights