DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed September 25, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Objection(s)
Claim 17 recites “The computer-readable medium of claim 1…[…]…” and is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 is to a computer readable medium therefore examiner presumes it should be dependent from claim 11. 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 1-20 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C 101 as not being directed to eligible subject matter based on the grounds set out in detail below:
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 18:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
Independent Claim 1 falls within the statutory category of method
Independent Claim 11 falls within the statutory category of article of manufacture
Independent Claim 18 falls within the statutory category of system
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Independent claims 1, 11, and 18 (Claim 1 being representative) claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim elements which set forth the abstract idea in claims 1, 11, and 18 are (Claim 1 being representative):
A method for generating a care plan the method comprising: comparing a first data structure with a second data structure, wherein the first data structure comprises a set of health artifacts pertaining to a first condition of the patient, and the second data structure pertains to the patient and the first condition of the patient, and the second data structure comprises a subset of the set of the health artifacts;
responsive to the comparing, generating the care plan comprising another subset of the set of health artifacts;
and modifying the another subset of the set of health artifacts in the care plan based on a detected tone of the patient, a detected emotion of the patient, a medical outcome desired by a physician, or some combination thereof.
This abstract idea is “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” within certain methods of organizing human activity as it is generating a health care plan using data. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For Independent claim 1, 11, and 18 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites the additional claim elements below:
electronically
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
Within the noted above additional claim element, electronically, is generally linking the care plan to be implemented by computers in electronic format
Independent claim 11 recites the additional claim elements below not already recited in claim 1:
A processing device with a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
Within the noted above additional claim element, A processing device with a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, is performing the abstract idea and is recited in the manner of merely invoking the element as a tool to “apply-it” or an equivalent and therefore is no more than using these generic elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Independent claim 18 recites the additional claim elements below not already recited in claim 1:
A processing device with a memory storing instructions
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
Within the noted above additional claim element, A processing device with a memory storing instructions, is performing the abstract idea and is recited in the manner of merely invoking the element as a tool to “apply-it” or an equivalent and therefore is no more than using these generic elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 11, and 18 as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(1).
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer elements as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, are merely generally linking and/or applying the abstract idea with general computer elements and therefore, do not amount to significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
The dependent claims 2-10 fall within the statutory category of method
The dependent claims 12-17 are presumed to fall within the statutory category of article of manufacture
The dependent claims 19-20 fall within the statutory category of machine
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims continue to limit the independent claims 1, 11, and 18 abstract idea by (1) further limiting the modification of health artifacts, (2)generating a net promoter score, (3) further limiting the data structures. Therefore, the dependent claims inherit the same abstract idea which is “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” within certain methods of organizing human activity as it is generating a health care plan using data. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite the below additional claim elements not already recited in the independent claims:
a computing device
a machine learning model
an updated machine learning model
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional element, a machine learning model , is merely generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of machine learning
The additional element, an updated machine learning model , is merely generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of machine learning
The additional element, a computing device, is recited in the manner of merely invoking the element as a tool to “apply-it” or an equivalent for data outputting and therefore is no more than using these generic elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the dependent claims as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(1).
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer elements as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, are merely generally linking and/or applying the abstract idea with general computer elements and therefore, do not amount to significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cox (US10565309B2)
As per claim 1, Cox teaches:
A method for electronically generating a care plan, the method comprising: (Col. 5 lines 1-4 discloses, generating patient care plans based on the patient's medical condition)
Comparing (Col. 35 lines 11-33 discloses lifestyle and medical code information is looked at in combination thus interpreted as comparing to determine a final care plan), a first data structure (Col. 38 lines 22-34 e.g. medical code table data structure), with a second data structure (Col. 6 lines 1-5 and 16-24 and 55-58 Col. e.g. lifestyle data structure) wherein the first data structure comprises a set of health artifacts pertaining to a first condition of the patient (Col. 35 lines 11-33 discloses, a set of first rules or conditions related to the patient characteristics e.g. a particular medical malady such as diabetes/ the set of rules or conditions related to the patient are considered health artifacts), and the second data structure pertains to the patient and the first condition of the patient and the second data structure comprises a subset of the set of the health artifacts; (Col. 35 lines 11-33 discloses, a second set of rules or conditions related to the patient’s lifestyle which is triggered by the first rule of the condition of the patient in this example diabetes with the second set having a subset of rules (interpreted as artifacts) i.e. has a sedentary lifestyle)
responsive to the comparing, generating the care plan comprising another subset of the set of health artifacts; (Col. 38 lines 47-61 and Col. 39 lines 1-16 discloses, generating a care plan, another subset of rules to identify a patient cohort and whether they are in compliance interpreted as another subset of the set of health rules (artifacts))
and modifying the another subset of the set of health artifacts in the care plan based on a detected tone of the patient, a detected emotion of the patient, a medical outcome desired by a physician, or some combination thereof. (Col. 39 lines 16-45, the rules for the care plan may be modified based on the medical outcome desired by the physician and exclude or include patients)
As per claim 5, Cox teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising causing the care plan including modifications to the another subset of the set of the health artifacts to be presented on a computing device. (Fig. 7, 790 and Col. 33 lines 24-29)
As per claim 6, Cox teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising modifying the another subset of the set of the health artifacts in the care plan based on the medical outcome desired by the physician by receiving instructions from a computing device of a physician to select a health artifact that corresponds to the medical outcome and to include the health artifact in the another subset of the set of the health artifacts. (Col. 26 lines 10-15 discloses, a request to generate a personalized care plan from a physician's computing system and Col. 42 lines 35-55 discloses, the original personalized care plan and system work in conjunction with the cohort database and cohort rules to identify cohorts of patients / as previously cited the another subset of the set of health artifacts is the cohort of patients)
As per claim 8, Cox teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising including, in the care plan, action instructions pertaining to the another subset of the set of the health artifacts, wherein the action instructions are directed toward a medical personnel, the patient, or both. (Col. 30 lines 3-21 discloses, e.g. reminder to schedule an appointment)
As per claim 9, Cox teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving input from a computing device, wherein the input specifies a number and a type of health artifacts in the set of the health artifacts the patient selects to manage; Col. 32 lines 16-32 discloses, receiving health information from a monitoring device and the patient may input the specific health artifacts into a computer of interest to monitor)
and selecting, based on the comparing, the another subset of the set of the health artifacts in the first data structure by selecting the another subset based on the number and the type of health artifacts specified by the patient. (Col. 46 lines 49-64 and Col. 47 lines 1-37 discloses, when comparing patient cohorts that are successful and not successful choosing based on the compliance with a number of health artifacts that were previously cited as possibly coming from patient input)
As per claims 11, 15, and 16, they are article of manufacture claims which repeats the same limitations of claims 1, 5, and 6 the corresponding method claims, as a collection of executable instructions stored on machine readable media as opposed to a series of process steps. Since the teachings of Cox disclose the underlying process steps that constitute the method of claims 1, 5, and 6 it is respectfully submitted that they likewise disclose the executable instructions that perform the steps as well. As such, the limitations of claims 11, 15, and 16 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 1, 5, and 6.
As per claim 18, it is a system claim which repeat the same limitations of claim 1 the corresponding method claim, as a collection of elements as opposed to a series of process steps. Since the teachings of Cox disclose the underlying process steps that constitute the methods of claim 1 it is respectfully submitted that they provide the underlying structural elements that perform the steps as well. As such, the limitations of claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US10565309B2) in view of Mander et. al (hereinafter Mander) (US2018/0181716A1)
As per claim 2, Cox does not teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising modifying the another subset of the set of the health artifacts in real-time or near real-time.
However, Mander does teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising modifying the another subset of the set of the health artifacts in real-time or near real-time. ([0065] discloses, A recommendation modifies a user ' s screen in real time to impact his or her workflow in the moment / where the user is making decisions related to the recommendation)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cox’s teachings of generating a care plan with Mander’s teachings of showing health information in real time for the purpose of interacting with health data in a timely manner (see e.g. Mander [0004] and [0065]) with the motivation of improving the accuracy and management of patients health information to give proper care plans in an efficient and timely manner.
As per claim 12, it is an article of manufacture claims which repeats the same limitations of claim 2, the corresponding method claim, as a collection of executable instructions stored on machine readable media as opposed to a series of process steps. Since the teachings and motivations of Cox disclose the underlying process steps that constitute the methods of claim 2 it is respectfully submitted that they disclose the executable instructions that perform the steps as well. As such, the limitations of claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 2.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US10565309B2) in view of RIISTAMA et. al (hereinafter RIISTAMA)(US2017/0344713A1)
As per claim 3, Cox does not teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising detecting the detected tone of the patient based on words spoken by the patient, text entered by the patient, or some combination thereof.
However, RIISTAMA does teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising detecting the detected tone of the patient based on words spoken by the patient, text entered by the patient, or some combination thereof. ([ 0149 ] discloses, Whether the patient is sad depressed or angry can be derived from and [ 0150 ] discloses, tone of speaking and [ 0151 ] discloses, muscle tension in facial muscles and [ 0152 ] discloses, face recognition of emotions.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cox’s teachings of generating a care plan and modifying it with RIISTAMA’s teachings of detecting the emotion or tone of a patient to make collaborative positive decisions in the care of a patient (see e.g. RIISTAMA [0003] and [0149]-[0152]) with the motivation of improving the accuracy and management of patients health information to give proper care plans in an efficient and timely manner that the patient is more likely to respond to and follow.
As per claim 4, Cox does not teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising detecting the detected emotion of the patient based on words spoken by the patient, text entered by the patient, a detected facial expression of the patient, or some combination thereof.
However, RIISTAMA does teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising detecting the detected emotion of the patient based on words spoken by the patient, text entered by the patient, a detected facial expression of the patient, or some combination thereof. ([ 0149 ] discloses, Whether the patient is sad depressed or angry can be derived from and [ 0150 ] discloses, tone of speaking and [ 0151 ] discloses, muscle tension in facial muscles and [ 0152 ] discloses, face recognition of emotions.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cox’s teachings of generating a care plan and modifying it with RIISTAMA’s teachings of detecting the emotion or tone of a patient to make collaborative positive decisions in the care of a patient (see e.g. RIISTAMA [0003] and [0149]-[0152]) for the same reasons given above for claim 3.
As per claims 13 and 14, they are article of manufacture claims which repeats the same limitations of claims 3 and 4, the corresponding method claims, as a collection of executable instructions stored on machine readable media as opposed to a series of process steps. Since the teachings of. Since the teachings and motivations of Cox and RIISTAMA disclose the underlying process steps that constitute the methods of claim 3 and 4 it is respectfully submitted that they disclose the executable instructions that perform the steps as well. As such, the limitations of claim 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 3 and 4.
As per claim 20, it is a system claim which repeat the same limitations of claims 3, 4, and 6 the corresponding method claims, as a collection of elements as opposed to a series of process steps. Since the teachings of Cox and RIISTAMA and the motivations to combine disclose the underlying process steps that constitute the methods of claim 3, 4, and 6 it is respectfully submitted that they provide the underlying structural elements that perform the steps as well. As such, the limitations of claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 3,4, and 6.
Claims 7, 17, and 19 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US10565309B2) in view of Barnard et. al (hereinafter Barnard) (US2018/0025126A1) and in further view of (Appelbaum et. al (hereinafter Appelbaum)(US2022/0051773A1)
As per claim 7, Cox does not teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a net promoter score based on the detected tone of the patient, the detected emotion of the patient, or both in response to the patient interacting with the care plan;
and updating a machine learning model based on the net promoter score being below a threshold value to obtain an updated machine learning model that outputs different health artifacts for subsequent patients having the condition.
However, Barnard does teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a net promoter score based on the detected tone of the patient, the detected emotion of the patient, or both in response to the patient interacting with the care plan; ([0015] discloses, In one embodiment , the Life Context Graph may be generally schema - less , being represented in any machine state by a “ property dictionary ” of keys and values …[…]…As a specific example , a text string may be “ [ Subject ] is feeling [ emotion ] , ” wherein the subject and emotion are values . In instances where the subject is “ John Doe ” and the emotion used to describe John Doe ' s emotional state is “ happy , " this key and value combination may be published to the Life Context Graph for John Doe as a contextual “ State .and [ 0071 ] discloses, In step 402 , the system derives population - or peer - group - level statistics from the aggregated Life Context Graph information of the selected subjects . Exemplary statistics include…[…]…and Net Promoter Score.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cox’s teachings of generating a care plan with Barnard’s teachings of a net promoter score in relation to a patients emotion to take into account mental health of a patient for data analysis (see e.g. Barnard [0005] and [0015]) with the motivation of improving the accuracy and management of patients health information to give proper care plans that can identify emotional triggers that can influence the care plan.
However, Barnard also does not teach:
and updating a machine learning model based on the net promoter score being below a threshold value to obtain an updated machine learning model that outputs different health artifacts for subsequent patients having the condition.
However, Appelbaum does teach:
and updating a machine learning model based on the net promoter score being below a threshold value to obtain an updated machine learning model that outputs different health artifacts for subsequent patients having the condition. ([0064] discloses ,The CDS software in the exemplary system 100 may be instructed to deliver an alert to a provider device 113 when a patient's blood sugar is likely to drop below a predetermined threshold , and thus predict that the patient's medication should be decreased. And [0065]-[0068] discloses, various information about a patient is used with machine learning to identify a patient cohorts likelihood of completing a treatment and these algorithms are updated based on the real time data and [ 0177 ] All behavioral app participants are asked to complete a net promoter score ( NPS ) at Day 75 of their program . The NPS is a standardized tool for measuring a participant's overall satisfaction with the program . Participants are asked how likely they are to recommend the app to a friend with a relevant condition and are asked to enter a number from 1 to 10)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cox’s teachings of generating a care plan with Barnard’s teachings of a net promoter score in relation to a patients emotion to take into account mental health of a patient for data analysis (see e.g. Barnard [0005] and [0015]) with Appelbaum’s teaching of updating a machine learning model based on the net promoter score, the motivation of improving the accuracy and management of patients health information to drive higher compliance and satisfaction with patients who are most unsatisfied with the care plan.
As per claim 17 it is an article of manufacture claim which repeats the same limitations of claim 7, the corresponding method claim, as a collection of executable instructions stored on machine readable media as opposed to a series of process steps. Since the teachings of Cox, Barnard, and Appelbaum as well as the motivations to combine disclose the underlying process steps that constitute the method of claim 7 it is respectfully submitted that they likewise disclose the executable instructions that perform the steps as well. As such, the limitations of claim 17 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 7.
As per claim 19, it is a system claim which repeat the same limitations of claims 7, the corresponding method claim, as a collection of elements as opposed to a series of process steps. Since the teachings and motivations to combine of Cox, Barnard, and Appelbaum disclose the underlying process steps that constitute the methods of claim 7, it is respectfully submitted that they provide the underlying structural elements that perform the steps as well. As such, the limitations of claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 7.
Claim 10 is rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US10565309B2) in view of Barnard et. al (hereinafter Barnard) (US2018/0025126A1) And in further view of Giannulli et. al (hereinafter Giannulli ) (US11636350Bl)
As per claim 10, Cox further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the subset of the set of the health artifacts correspond with actions already performed by the patient, (Col. 27 lines 1-7, discloses, the patient having a sedentary job for example and as previously cited the subset of the set can be lifestyle specific information such as sedentary lifestyle) and the another subset of the set of the health artifacts correspond with actions that have not yet been performed by the patient; (Col. 13 lines 4-22 and Col. 14 lines 3-10 discloses, determining future success of patient cohorts by reviewing similar or historical cohorts to make actions the current patient cohort will more likely be able to adhere too.)
the comparing further comprises projecting the second data structure onto the first data structure;…[…]… (Fig. 8 for example shows the hierarchy of taking the first data structure e.g. medical codes and projecting lifestyle information such as sedentary desk job from second data structure to determine personalized care plan)
However, Cox does not teach:
and the first data structure is a knowledge graph, and the second data structure is a patient graph.
However, Barnard does teach:
and the second data structure is a patient graph. ([0014] discloses, life context graph with information on the lifestyle of a consumer which as previously cited lifestyle information is the second data structure)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cox’s teachings of generating a care plan with Barnard’s teachings of a patient graph which represents a collection of items for a population to gather and implement real time data (see e.g. Barnard [0014] and [0009]) with the motivation of improving the accuracy and management of patients health information to give proper care plans that have a relationship of information in real time.
However, Barnard also does not teach:
and the first data structure is a knowledge graph…[…]….
However, Giannulli does teach:
and the first data structure is a knowledge graph…[…]… (Col. 6 lines 59-67 and Col. 7 lines 1-18 discloses, the use of a knowledge graph which has standards of care such as medical codes and these medical codes as previously cited are the first data structure),
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cox’s teachings of generating a care plan with Barnard’s teachings of a knowledge graph which represents a collection of items for a population to gather and implement real time data (see e.g. Barnard [0014] and [0009]) and Giannulli’s teachings of knowledge graphs with clinical information semantically represent relevant information (e.g. see Giannulli abstract), the with the motivation of improving the accuracy and management of patients health information to give proper care plans that have a relationship of information in real time.
Prior Art Made of Record but Not Cited
US20170249434A1 – Brunner et. al
Real - time and individualized disease monitoring is central to rapidly evolving medical sciences and technologies , but for the vast majority of patients , disease progression and treat ment are monitored only in an irregular and discontinuous fashion . Consequently , disease progression and relapse are often allowed to proceed too far before they are detected , compromising the possibility of any effective treatment . For one patient , this can mean becoming refractory to the few early drug treatments that are available ; for another , missing early detection may be deadly . This invention provides a method for the detection of early signals of disease and recovery thereof comprising a universal yet personalized health - monitoring solution using cell phones or other wear able smart device data that generate extensive real - time data . The invention further provides a system and method to provide answers to a variety of questions related to the patient health status and health trajectory . Its flexibility and generality is designed for a preferred application to rare disorders and rare questions for which other analytical system are lacking .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Elizabeth Evans whose telephone number is (571) 270-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ASHLEY ELIZABETH EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687