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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/26, 01/15/25 and 12/03/24 have been considered by examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112B
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 limitations “output part”, “pressing part” and “adjusting member” in claims 1, 5 and 13 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification attempts to broadly define the functional aspects of the output part (see PG Pub, par. 35 and 46 (sound output part)), pressing part (see PG Pub, par. 32, 153) and adjusting member (see PG Pub, par. 32, 155, 165), but does not provide sufficient structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“an output part configured to output a measured value of the pulse wave sensor as a digital signal” in claims 1, 5, 13;
“a pressing part configured to press the pulse wave sensor to the radial artery” in claims 1, 5, 13; and
“an adjusting member configured to adjust a pressing force on the pulse wave sensor” in claims 5 and 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see PG Pub of the instant application, par.32, 35, 153, 155, 165 +, which appear to set forth corresponding structure for the output part, pressing part and adjusting member).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method of adjusting a pulse wave measurement device attachable to a wrist of a user. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
acquire a pulse wave by measuring a pulse of a radial artery;
output a measured value of the pulse wave sensor as a digital signal
acquiring a pulse wave using the pulse wave sensor when the pulse wave measurement device is attached to a wrist of a user,
and outputting a measured value thus acquired, as a digital signal;
comparing a voltage level of the digital signal with a range that is previously set with respect to a maximum voltage level of the output part;
These limitations set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites adjusting or instructing a pressing force on the pulse wave sensor, in a case where the voltage level of the digital signal is outside the range that is previously set, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The adjusting or instructing a pressing force does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the model, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. A
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
pulse wave measurement device
pulse wave sensor
a pressing part configured to press the pulse wave sensor to the radial artery
an output part
The providing and recording steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing and recording steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter
Dependent claims 2-4 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-4 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0257050) and in further view of Kitagawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0367649)
Regarding claim 1, Kuroda teaches a method of adjusting a pulse wave measurement device [par. 29, 144] attachable to a wrist of a user [fig. 4A], wherein the pulse wave measurement device includes: a pulse wave sensor [par. 123] including and configured to acquire a pulse wave by measuring a pulse of a radial artery [par. 146]; a pressing part configured to press the pulse wave sensor to the radial artery [par. 143]; and an output part [par. 123] configured to output a measured value of the pulse wave sensor as a digital signal [par. 127], the method, comprising, acquiring a pulse wave using the pulse wave sensor when the pulse wave measurement device is attached to a wrist of a user [par. 143], and outputting a measured value thus acquired, as a digital signal [par. 123, 145]; comparing a voltage level of the digital signal with a range that is previously set with respect to a maximum voltage level of the output part [par. 242-246]; and adjusting or instructing a pressing force on the pulse wave sensor, in a case where the voltage level of the digital signal is outside the range that is previously set [par. 242-246]
However, Kuroda does not teach a pulse wave sensor including a strain gauge
Kitagawa teaches a pulse wave sensor including a strain gauge [par. 34]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda, to incorporate, a pulse wave sensor including a strain gauge, so a pressure vibration wave generated in the radial artery T and transmitted to the skin, namely, a pulse wave, when pressed against the radial artery T in such a manner that the arrangement direction crosses the radial artery T, as evidence by Kitagawa [par. 36].
Regarding claim 2, Kuroda further teaches the range of the voltage level that is previously set and with which comparison is made in the comparing is equal to or higher than a maximum output level of the output part [par. 242-246]
Although Kuroda does not explicitly teach comparison is made in the comparing is equal to or higher than 35% of a maximum output level of the output part, this would be obvious to one skilled in the art since Kuroda also teaches the magnitude of a signal value has an individual difference when determining the proper pressing force for an individual [par. 243]. Additionally, the proper pressing force has a certain degree of a range (a range satisfying V1<V<V2) in view of characteristics of the living organism, so the proper pressing force is not limited to one pressure value [par. 244]. Therefore, incorporating the threshold being higher than 35% of a maximum output level would only involve routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Kuroda further teaches an output level of the digital signal that is subjected to comparison in the comparing is an average voltage of the digital signal for a desirable period [par. 250, 251]
Regarding claim 5, Kuroda teaches pulse wave measurement system, comprising: a pulse wave measurement device [par. 29, 144] attachable to a wrist of a user [fig. 4A]; and an information processing device capable of communicating with the pulse wave measurement device [par. 122], wherein the pulse wave measurement device includes: a pulse wave sensor [par. 123] and configured to acquire a pulse wave of a radial artery when the pulse wave measurement device is attached to the wrist of the user [par. 143]; an output part configured to output a measured value of the pulse wave sensor as a digital signal [par. 123, 127]; a pressing part configured to press the pulse wave sensor to the radial artery [par. 143]; and an adjusting member configured to adjust a pressing force on the pulse wave sensor [par. 235], and the information processing device includes: a comparison part configured to compare a voltage level of the digital signal with a range that is previously set with respect to a maximum voltage level of the output part [par. 242-246]; and an adjustment instruction part configured to instruct adjustment of the pressing force on the pulse wave sensor in a case where the voltage level of the digital signal is outside the range that is previously set [par. 242-246]
However, Kuroda does not teach a pulse wave sensor including a strain gauge
Kitagawa teaches a pulse wave sensor including a strain gauge [par. 34]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda, to incorporate, a pulse wave sensor including a strain gauge, so a pressure vibration wave generated in the radial artery T and transmitted to the skin, namely, a pulse wave, when pressed against the radial artery T in such a manner that the arrangement direction crosses the radial artery T, as evidence by Kitagawa [par. 36].
Regarding claim 6, Kuroda further teaches the pulse wave measurement device includes a belt for attachment, the belt being attached to the wrist of the user and being wound outside the pulse wave sensor [fig. 4A, 4B, elements 11, 300], the pressing part is a sensor fastener configured to hold a side of the pulse wave sensor that is opposite to the strain generating body [par. 143], and the adjusting member is the belt [par. 143], and is capable of adjusting a biasing force of the pressing part by adjusting a belt length of the belt [par. 143].
However, Kuroda does not teach the pulse wave sensor includes a strain generating body on which the strain gauge is positioned and that is brought into contact with the wrist of the user
Kitagawa teaches the pulse wave sensor includes a strain generating body on which the strain gauge is positioned and that is brought into contact with the wrist of the user [fig. 1, elements 6a, 7a; par. 34]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda, to incorporate, a strain generating body on which the strain gauge is positioned and that is brought into contact with the wrist of the user, so a pressure vibration wave generated in the radial artery T and transmitted to the skin, namely, a pulse wave, when pressed against the radial artery T in such a manner that the arrangement direction crosses the radial artery T, as evidence by Kitagawa [par. 36].
Regarding claim 7, Kuroda further teaches the pulse wave sensor includes, the pressing part is a sensor fastener configured to hold a side of the pulse wave sensor that is opposite to the strain generating body [fig. 4A, 4B, elements 11, 300; par. 143], and the adjusting member is a biasing force adjusting mechanism configured to be brought into contact with a side of the sensor fastener that is opposite to the pulse wave sensor and bias the sensor fastener toward the wrist of the user [par. 143].
However, Kuroda does not teach a strain generating body on which the strain gauge is positioned and that is brought into contact with the wrist of the user
Kitagawa teaches a strain generating body on which the strain gauge is positioned and that is brought into contact with the wrist of the user [fig. 1, elements 6a, 7a; par. 34]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda, to incorporate, a strain generating body on which the strain gauge is positioned and that is brought into contact with the wrist of the user, so a pressure vibration wave generated in the radial artery T and transmitted to the skin, namely, a pulse wave, when pressed against the radial artery T in such a manner that the arrangement direction crosses the radial artery T, as evidence by Kitagawa [par. 36].
Regarding claim 8, Kuroda further teaches the pulse wave sensor of the pulse wave measurement device outputs an analog signal, and the output part includes an amplification circuit and an A/D converter [par. 128, 162]
Regarding claim 10, Kitagawa further teaches the pulse wave sensor includes a strain generating body to which the strain gauge is attached, and the pulse wave sensor is configured to detect the pulse wave based on a change in a resistance value of the strain gauge caused by deformation of the strain generating body [par. 34; Examiner notes this is inherent as it is the function of the strain gauge]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda, to incorporate, the pulse wave sensor includes a strain generating body to which the strain gauge is attached, and the pulse wave sensor is configured to detect the pulse wave based on a change in a resistance value of the strain gauge caused by deformation of the strain generating body, so a pressure vibration wave generated in the radial artery T and transmitted to the skin, namely, a pulse wave, when pressed against the radial artery T in such a manner that the arrangement direction crosses the radial artery T, as evidence by Kitagawa [par. 36].
Regarding claim 13, Kuroda teaches pulse wave measurement device attachable to a wrist of a user [fig. 4A; par. 29, 144], the pulse wave measurement device comprising: a pulse wave sensor [par. 123] and configured to acquire a pulse wave of a radial artery when the pulse wave measurement device is attached to a wrist of a user [par. 143]; an output part configured to output a measured value of the pulse wave sensor as a digital signal [par. 123, 127]; a comparison part configured to compare a voltage level of the digital signal with a range that is previously set with respect to a maximum voltage level of the output part [par. 242-246]; a pressing part configured to press the pulse wave sensor to the radial artery [par. 143]; and an adjusting member configured to adjust a pressing force on the pulse wave sensor in a case where the voltage level of the digital signal is outside the range that is previously set [par. 235, 242-246]
However, Kuroda does not teach a pulse wave sensor including a strain gauge
Kitagawa teaches a pulse wave sensor including a strain gauge [par. 34]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda, to incorporate, a pulse wave sensor including a strain gauge, so a pressure vibration wave generated in the radial artery T and transmitted to the skin, namely, a pulse wave, when pressed against the radial artery T in such a manner that the arrangement direction crosses the radial artery T, as evidence by Kitagawa [par. 36].
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda and Kitagawa and in further view of Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0255497)
Regarding claim 4, Kuroda and Kitagawa teach a method and system of adjusting a pulse wave measurement device attachable to a wrist of a user, as disclosed above
However, Kuroda and Kitagawa do not teach performing 0-point correction of the digital signal acquired by the pulse wave sensor as an initial adjustment, before the comparing, when the pulse wave measurement device is attached to the wrist of the user for a first time
Wu teaches performing 0-point correction of the digital signal acquired by the pulse wave sensor as an initial adjustment, before the comparing, when the pulse wave measurement device is attached to the wrist of the user for a first time [par. 22, 79, 97]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda and Kitagawa, to incorporate, performing 0-point correction of the digital signal acquired by the pulse wave sensor as an initial adjustment, before the comparing, when the pulse wave measurement device is attached to the wrist of the user for a first time, for determining a delay, as evidence by Wu [par. 97].
Regarding claim 9, Wu further teaches the information processing device calculates a second derivative of the digital signal that is a measured value of the pulse wave after the pressing force is adjusted, to calculate an acceleration pulse wave [par. 22, 79, 97]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda and Kitagawa, to incorporate, the information processing device calculates a second derivative of the digital signal that is a measured value of the pulse wave after the pressing force is adjusted, to calculate an acceleration pulse wave, for determining a delay, as evidence by Wu [par. 97].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda and Kitagawa and in further view of Wang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0117083)
Regarding claim 11, Kuroda and Kitagawa teach a method and system of adjusting a pulse wave measurement device attachable to a wrist of a user, as disclosed above
However, Kuroda and Kitagawa do not teach the strain gauge includes a strain gauge including a resistor made of a film containing Cr, CrN, and Cr2
PNG
media_image1.png
16
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang teaches the strain gauge includes a strain gauge including a resistor made of a film containing Cr, CrN, and Cr2 [par. 90]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda and Kitagawa, to incorporate, the strain gauge includes a strain gauge including a resistor made of a film containing Cr, CrN, and Cr2, to compensate for temperature changes, as evidence by Wang [par. 90].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda and Kitagawa and in further view of Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0182147)
Regarding claim 12, Kuroda and Kitagawa teach a method and system of adjusting a pulse wave measurement device attachable to a wrist of a user, as disclosed above
However, Kuroda and Kitagawa do not teach the pulse wave measurement device further includes a position detector configured to detect a position of the pulse wave sensor with respect to the radial artery
Sato teaches the pulse wave measurement device further includes a position detector configured to detect a position of the pulse wave sensor with respect to the radial artery [par. 44]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kuroda and Kitagawa, to incorporate, a position detector configured to detect a position of the pulse wave sensor with respect to the radial artery, to determine device placement, as evidence by Sato [par.46].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE LINING ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
