DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 limitation(s) is/are: “an obtaining module”, “an analysis module”, “a selection module”, “an estimation index determination module”, and “an attention level determination module” in claim 6. Each of the specific modules recited in claim 6 will be interpreted as software modules as supported by [0108] of the specification (as filed).
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.
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 § 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.
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, the limitation of “correcting, according to the correction coefficient, the area of the waveform descent region” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what the “correcting” step requires. In order for further advance prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the correcting step as any step that effects the area of the waveform descent region.
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 1-16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of determining an attention level corresponding to the exercise ECG data) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-16 and 21-24 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a method/system for determining an attention level corresponding to the exercise ECG data.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1-16 and 21-24, the recited steps are directed to mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, the limitations of “analyzing a high-frequency component…”, “selecting a first reference point…”, “determining…a corresponding area of a waveform descent region…”, “determining…an attention level…”, “selecting a start point…”, and “selecting a candidate waveform curve…” are a process, as drafted, that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, and judgment) under the broadest reasonable interpretation but for the recitation of generic computing components.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1-16 and 21-24, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For claims 1, 6, and 11, the additional limitation of “an obtaining module”, “an analysis module”, “a selection module”, “an estimation index determination module”, “an attention level determination module”, “one or more processors”, and “a memory” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the limitations of “obtaining exercise electrocardiogram (ECG) data” amount to nothing more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “obtaining exercise electrocardiogram (ECG) data” are directed to the pre-solution activity of mere data gathering which does not amount to an inventive concept. The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations of a processor, a memory, and modules in claims 1, 6, and 11 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-16 and 21-24 are further directed to the abstract idea. The above mentioned claims do not introduce any additional elements which amount to significantly more under the Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analyses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-16, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toledo et al (US 2009/0318820) hereinafter Toledo.
Regarding claim 1, Toledo discloses an exercise electrocardiogram data analysis method, comprising: obtaining exercise electrocardiogram (ECG) data [0172];
analyzing a high-frequency component of a QRS complex in the exercise EGG data to obtain a high-frequency QRS waveform curve ([0204] qHF as RMS 302), the high-frequency QRS waveform curve representing a variation trend of a root-mean-square (RMS) voltage of a high-frequency component of a QRS complex of a subject over time during an entire exercise stress ECG testing (Fig. 3; [0204]);
selecting a first reference point (peak 314) and a second reference point (trough 318) from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve [0204];
determining, according to the first reference point (peak 314), the second reference point (trough 318), and the high- frequency QRS waveform curve (qHF as RMS 302), a corresponding area of a waveform descent region ([0204] qHF 302 begins to decrease after reaching a peak (314) and qHF 302 reaches a trough 318); and
determining, according to the area of the waveform descent region, an attention level (diagnoses/judgement) corresponding to the exercise ECG data ([0204] a subject exhibiting intensity reduction similar to that of FIG. 3 can be diagnosed, or judged, as having ischemia, or at least a stressed-induced ischemia);
wherein selecting the first reference point and the second reference point from the high- frequency QRS waveform curve comprises:
selecting a start point and an end point of an exercise phase from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve as the first reference point and the second reference point, respectively; or,
selecting a candidate waveform curve from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, selecting, from the candidate waveform curve, a point with a maximum RMS voltage as the first reference point (peak 314), and a point with a minimum RMS voltage after the first reference point as the second reference point (trough 318; [0205]); or,
selecting a candidate waveform curve from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, selecting a point with the maximum RMS voltage from the candidate waveform curve as the first reference point, and selecting the end point of the exercise phase as the second reference point.
Regarding claim 11, Toledo further discloses a computer device comprising a memory ([0269] the computer comprises software and/or hardware and/or firmware that performs computations, mathematical derivations, and rules and logic for intensity reduction) and one or more processors ([0270] DSP and/or ASIC units), wherein the memory stores computer-readable instructions, and the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method steps above [0269].
Regarding claim 16, Toledo discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums storing computer-readable instructions (software), wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by one or more processors ([0269] computer; [0270] DSP and/or ASIC units), cause the one or more processors to perform an exercise electrocardiogram data analysis method according to claim 1 ([0269] the computer comprises software and/or hardware and/or firmware that performs computations, mathematical derivations, and rules and logic for intensity reduction).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Toledo discloses wherein the area of the waveform descent region comprises an absolute descent area ([0206] an absolute difference (Da)), and determining, according to the first reference point, the second reference point, and the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, the area of the corresponding waveform descent region comprises:
selecting a curve between the first reference point and the second reference point from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve as a reference waveform curve ([0205] maximal and minimal values 314 and 318; Examiner notes the curve between 314 and 318 would be a reference waveform curve);
determining, according to the reference waveform curve, a reference amplitude ([0206] an absolute difference threshold Ta; [0209] Ta is different for different quantifications of qHF); and
calculating, according to the reference amplitude and the reference waveform curve, the absolute descent area by using a first function ([0212] absolute difference check (408); Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Toledo discloses wherein the area of the waveform descent region further comprises a relative descent area ([0206] a relative difference (Dr)), and determining, according to the first reference point, the second reference point, and the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, the area of the corresponding waveform descent region further comprises:
calculating, according to the reference waveform curve, a reference area by using a second function ([0210] the relative difference is defined as (H-L)/H); and
obtaining, according to the absolute descent area and the reference area, the relative descent area ([0212] the relative difference (H-L)/H is checked whether it is above the threshold Tr (412)).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Toledo discloses determining, according to the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, a reference index (a relative difference (Dr) between H and L), the reference index comprising at least one of an amplitude decrease relative value [0206], a lead positive index, a positive position, or a waveform category;
wherein determining, according to the area of the waveform descent region, the attention level corresponding to the exercise ECG data comprises:
determining, according to the area of the waveform descent region and the reference index, the attention level corresponding to the exercise ECG data ([0212] the relative difference (H-L)/H is checked whether it is above the threshold Tr (412). If not, the respective lead does not exhibit a significant intensity reduction (414). Otherwise, as both the absolute and relative criteria are met, the reduction is determined as significant (416); Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Toledo discloses obtaining exercise stress test parameters (duration of exercise 304, stress/HR 306) corresponding to the exercise ECG data [0204]; and
determining, according to the exercise stress test parameters, a correction coefficient ([0201] the stages times are responsive to heart rate or the signal noise);
wherein determining, according to the area of the waveform descent region, the attention level corresponding to the exercise EGG data comprises:
correcting, according to the correction coefficient, the area of the waveform descent region ([0201] For each stage a representative high frequency QRS (HFQRS) is derived as described above, and a quantification of the HFQRS is derived (hereinafter qHF);
and determining, according to a corrected area of the waveform descent region, the attention level corresponding to the exercise EGG data ([0204] a subject exhibiting intensity reduction similar to that of FIG. 3 can be diagnosed, or judged, as having ischemia, or at least a stressed-induced ischemia).
Regarding claim 21, Toledo discloses wherein determining, according to the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, the reference index comprises determining the amplitude decrease relative value ([0206] a relative difference (Dr) between H and L), and determining the amplitude decrease relative value comprises:
selecting a curve within a preset time period from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve as a candidate waveform curve ([0204] a quantification qHF as RMS 302 with respect to a duration of a stress exercise 304; Examiner notes the duration of the exercise 304 would be a preset time);
selecting, from the candidate waveform curve, a point with the maximum RMS voltage as a third reference point (peak 314), and a point with the minimum RMS voltage after the third reference point as a fourth reference point ([0205] maximal and minimal values, H and L respectively, are determined, provided that H precedes L. For example, 314 (H) and 318 (L));
obtaining an amplitude decrease absolute value by subtracting the RMS voltage of the fourth reference point from the RMS voltage of the third reference point ([0212] absolute difference (H-L)) and
determine a ratio of the amplitude decrease absolute value to the RMS voltage of the third reference point as the amplitude decrease relative value ([0212] relative difference (H-L)/H).
Regarding claim 22, Toledo discloses wherein determining, according to the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, the reference index comprises determining the lead positive index (Fig. 5A: step 508), and determining the lead positive index comprises: determining the lead positive index according to the amplitude decrease relative value and the amplitude decrease absolute value ([0216] A group of Nr leads with the largest Dr is selected (504), and within the group the smallest Dr is selected, denoted as Drm (506); [0218] Drm is checked if it is larger than Tr, that is, whether the Dr values of the group of Nr leads with largest Dr satisfy the relative difference criterion (508)).
Regarding claim 23, Toledo discloses wherein determining, according to the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, the reference index comprises determining the positive position (Fig. 5A: candidate positive test 510), and determining the positive position, comprises:
determining the positive position according to a combination of ECG leads ([0216] Nr leads are ranked by Dr) indicated as positive by the lead positive index ([0218] Drm is checked if it is larger than Tr, that is, whether the Dr values of the group of Nr leads with largest Dr satisfy the relative difference criterion (508). If the criterion is met, the test is a candidate for a significant test (510)).
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.
Claim(s) 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo (US 2009/0318820).
Regarding claim 6, Toledo discloses an exercise electrocardiogram data analysis apparatus, comprising:
software configured to obtain exercise electrocardiogram (EGG) data ([0269] software that performs QRS detection);
software configured to analyze a high-frequency component of a QRS complex in the exercise ECG data to obtain a high-frequency QRS waveform curve ([0269] software that performs derivation of qHF), the high-frequency QRS waveform curve representing a variation trend of a root-mean-square (RMS) voltage of a high-frequency component of a QRS complex of a subject over time during an entire exercise stress ECG testing ([0204] qHF as RMS 302; Fig. 3);
software [0269] configured to select a first reference point (peak 314)and a second reference point (trough 318) from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve [0205]
software [0269] configured to determine, according to the first reference point, the second reference point, and the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, a corresponding area of a waveform descent region ([0204] qHF 302 begins to decrease after reaching a peak (314) and qHF 302 reaches a trough 318); and
software [0269] configured to determine, according to the area of the waveform descent region, an attention level (diagnoses/judgement) corresponding to the exercise EGG data ([0204] a subject exhibiting intensity reduction similar to that of FIG. 3 can be diagnosed, or judged, as having ischemia, or at least a stressed-induced ischemia);
wherein the software is further configured to: select a start point and an end point of an exercise phase from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve as the first reference point and the second reference point, respectively; or
select a candidate waveform curve from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, select, from the candidate waveform curve (qHF RMS 302), a point with a maximum RMS voltage (peak 314) as the first reference point, and a point with a minimum RMS voltage (trough 318) after the first reference point as the second reference point [0205]; or
select a candidate waveform curve from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, select a point with the maximum RMS voltage from the candidate waveform curve as the first reference point, and select the end point of the exercise phase as the second reference point.
While Toledo discloses software for performing computations, mathematical derivations, and the rules and logic for intensity reduction, Toledo fails to individually teach: an obtaining module; an analysis module; a selection module; an estimation index determination; and an attention level determination module. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Toledo to have an obtaining module; an analysis module; a selection module; an estimation index determination; and an attention level determination module by making separable the software. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of reducing the cognitive load on the software by making each module responsible for specific computations as well as improving maintainability by allowing developers to make adjustments to each module as apposed to the whole system.
Regarding claim 7, Toledo discloses wherein the area of the waveform descent region comprises an absolute descent area ([0206] an absolute difference (Da)), and the estimation index determination module is further configured to select a curve between the first reference point and the second reference point from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve as a reference waveform curve ([0205] maximal and minimal values 314 and 318; Examiner notes the curve between 314 and 318 would be a reference waveform curve);
determine, according to the reference waveform curve, a reference amplitude ([0206] an absolute difference threshold Ta; [0209] Ta is different for different quantifications of qHF); and
calculate, according to the reference amplitude and the reference waveform curve, the absolute descent area by using a first function ([0212] absolute difference check (408); Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Toledo discloses wherein the area of the waveform descent region further comprises a relative descent area ([0206] a relative difference (Dr)), and the estimation index determination module is further configured to calculate, according to the reference waveform curve, a reference area by using a second function ([0210] the relative difference is defined as (H-L)/H); and
obtain, according to the absolute descent area and the reference area, the relative descent area ([0212] the relative difference (H-L)/H is checked whether it is above the threshold Tr (412)).
Regarding claim 9, Toledo discloses wherein the estimation index determination module is further configured to determine, according to the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, a reference index (a relative difference (Dr) between H and L), the reference index comprises at least one of an amplitude decrease relative value [0206], a lead positive index, a positive position, or a waveform category, and the attention level determination module is further configured to determine, according to the area of the waveform descent region and the reference index, the attention level corresponding to the exercise ECG data ([0212] the relative difference (H-L)/H is checked whether it is above the threshold Tr (412). If not, the respective lead does not exhibit a significant intensity reduction (414). Otherwise, as both the absolute and relative criteria are met, the reduction is determined as significant (416); Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Toledo discloses wherein the obtaining module is further configured to obtain exercise stress test parameters (duration of exercise 304, stress/HR 306) corresponding to the exercise ECG data [0204], the estimation index determination module is further configured to determine, according to the exercise stress test parameters, a correction coefficient ([0201] the stages times are responsive to heart rate or the signal noise), and
the attention level determination module is further configured to: correct, according to the correction coefficient, the area of the waveform descent region ([0201] For each stage a representative high frequency QRS (HFQRS) is derived as described above, and a quantification of the HFQRS is derived (hereinafter qHF); and
determine, according to a corrected area of the waveform descent region, the attention level corresponding to the exercise ECG data ([0204] a subject exhibiting intensity reduction similar to that of FIG. 3 can be diagnosed, or judged, as having ischemia, or at least a stressed-induced ischemia).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo (US 2009/0318820) in view of Beker et al (US 2008/0194978) hereinafter Beker.
Regarding claim 24, Toledo discloses the method of claim 4 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein determining, according to the high-frequency QRS waveform curve, the reference index comprises determining the waveform category, and determining the waveform category comprises:
matching preset shapes with the high-frequency QRS waveform curve by using a third function and obtaining matching degrees thereof, and determining the waveform category of the high-frequency QRS waveform curve according to the matching degrees; or selecting fixed points from the high-frequency QRS waveform curve that represent a shape change by using the third function, and determining the waveform category of the high- frequency QRS waveform curve according to a shape category of a graph composed of the fixed points in a time sequence.
However, Beker discloses matching preset shapes (template waveform) with a high-frequency QRS waveform curve by using a third function (cross-correlation) and obtaining matching degrees thereof ([0159] a cross-correlation value of the HF QRS complex with a template waveform), and determining the waveform category (primary index) of the high-frequency QRS waveform curve according to the matching degrees ([0159] primary indices include a cross-correlation value of the HF QRS complex with a template waveform). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Toledo with matching preset shapes with a high-frequency QRS waveform curve by using a third function and obtaining matching degrees thereof, and determining a waveform category of the high-frequency QRS waveform curve according to the matching degrees as taught by Beker. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing quantifications of QRS complexes in order to determine if an ischemic event has occurred (Beker, [0012-0013]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schlegel et al (US 2003/0013978) is directed towards analyzing RMS and related values of high frequency QRS components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLOW GRACE WELCH whose telephone number is (703)756-1596. The examiner can normally be reached Usually M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/WILLOW GRACE WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights