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 .
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.
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.
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 image capture device configured to obtain and transmit a first set of motion data,” in claim 1, which corresponds to a “camera” or “Microsoft Kinect” (see page 13, lines 17-18 and 25-27 of the specification as originally filed); “at least one external body motion sensor configured to obtain and transmit a second set of motion data,” in claim 1, which corresponds to “an accelerometer” (see para [0007] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a triggering device, wherein the triggering device is configured to at least one of indicate one or more events or mark one or more of a particular movement for synchronization thereof,” in claim 1, which corresponds to “one or more of a user operated remote control, a keyboard, automatically via software based initiation, voice activation, or motion activation” (see claim 14 as originally filed); “a device for eye tracking configured to obtain and transmit an eye tracking data set for correlation with the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a further validated data set about the subject’s movements,” in claim 4, which corresponds to a “camera” (see page 27, lines 16-20 of the specification as originally filed); and “a device for voice tracking configured to obtain and transmit a voice tracking data set for correlation with the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a further validated data set about the subject’s movements,” in claim 5, which corresponds to a “microphone” (see page 13, lines 29-31 of the specification as originally 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.]
For claim 3, the claim language “receive balance data from the force plate for correlation with the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a further validated data set about the subject’s movement” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the examiner could not find the algorithm in the written description. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
For claim 4, the claim language “a device for eye tracking configured to obtain and transmit an eye tracking data set for correlation with the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a further validated data set about the subject’s movements” does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, had possession of the claimed invention. A claim may lack written description when the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Here, the examiner could not find the algorithm in the written description. Specifically, what the examiner was having trouble identifying is where the written description is for an “eye tracking data set” that is separate from the “first … [set] of motion data” and validates that data. Instead, what the examiner found support for was the eye tracking device being part of the image capture device and therefore producing the same data set as the image capture device. Therefore, a single data set cannot validate itself. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
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(s) 1-19 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “at least one of indicate one or more events or mark one or more of a particular movement for synchronization thereof” is ambiguous. Is the limitation “for synchronization thereof” apply to the just the “mark one or more of a particular movement” or does that limitation also apply to “indicate one or more events?” The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 15, the claim language “wherein the first set of motion data is obtained while at least one joint of the plurality of joints is held in a fixed position” is ambiguous. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps is indefinite because the recited limitations is not directed to “a motion analysis system,” but instead to a method (that method includes obtaining the first set of motion data while the at least one joint of the plurality of joints being held in a fixed position). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The claim is being examined as at least one joint of the plurality of joints being capable of being held in a fixed position while the first set of motion data is obtained.
Dependent claim(s) 2-19 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, Claim 1 is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receive the first set of motion data from the image capture device related to a plurality of joints of a subject while the subject is performing a task,” “receive the second set of motion data from the external body motion sensor related to the plurality of joints of the subject while the subject is performing the task, wherein the plurality of joints are located at different locations of the subject’s body,” “correlate the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a validated data set about the subjects movements,” “calculate kinematic and/or kinetic information about the plurality of joints of a subject from the validated data set,” and “output the kinematic and/or kinetic information for purpose of assessing a movement disorder, wherein the kinematic and/or kinetic information output by the system comprises metrics representative of the subject’s movement characteristics.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “an image capture device configured to obtain and transmit a first set of motion data,” “at least one external body motion sensor configured to obtain and transmit a second set of motion data,” “a triggering device, wherein the triggering device is configured to at least one of initiate data acquisition, end data acquisition, indicate an event, or mark a particular movement,” and “a central processing unit (CPU) with storage coupled to the CPU for storing instructions.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional. For example, the “image capture device” is commercially available and therefore routine, well-known, and conventional, as evidenced by page 13, lines 2-8 of the specification as originally filed. The “at least one external body motion sensor” is routine, well-known, and conventional, as evidenced by page 15, lines 15-22 of the specification as originally filed. The “triggering device” is routine, well-known, and conventional, as evidenced by page 33, lines 16-20 of the specification as originally filed. The “synchronization clock” is routine, well-known, and conventional, as evidenced by page, 29, lines 5-10 of the specification as originally filed. The “central processing unit” and the “storage” are routine, well-known, and conventional as evidence by Alice Corp. and OIP Techs. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2 recites a “force plate,” which is well-known, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by page 25, lines 27-30 of the specification as originally filed. Claim 2 recites additional abstract ideas under the same analysis as above. Claim 4 recites “a device for eye tracking,” which is well-known, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by page 27, lines 11-15 of the specification as originally filed. Claim 5 recites “a device for voice tracking,” which is well-known, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by page 13, lines 19-21 of the specification as originally filed. Claim 6 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claim 7 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claim 8 recites further limitations on an element that is routine, well-known, and conventional. Claim 9 recites further limitations on an element that is routine, well-known, and conventional. Claim 10 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claim 11 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claim 12 recites further limitation(s) on an element that is routine, well-known, and conventional. Claim 13 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claim 14 recites further limitations on the trigger, which is well-known, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by page 33, lines 16-20 of the specification as originally filed. Claim 15 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claim 16 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claim 17 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claim 18 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claim 19 recites further limitation(s) on an element that is routine, well-known, and conventional. Thus, claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 1-4, 6-9, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2013/054257 to Mirelman et al. (hereinafter “Mirelman”).
For claim 1, Mirelman discloses a motion analysis system for assessing a subject for a movement disorder (Abstract), the system comprising:
an image capture device configured to obtain and transmit a first set of motion data (Examiner’s Note: see 112(f) invocation above) (“cameras (e.g., or others, such as “Kinect”-type motion, gesture, and posture capture cameras),” page 25, lines 5-7) (also see 408) (Fig. 4A) (page 36, line 31 - page 37, line 2);
at least one external body motion sensor configured to obtain and transmit a second set of motion data (“acceleration and/or gyroscope sensors,” page 38, lines 12-20) (also see “accelerometers 410,” page 36, lines 28-30);
a triggering device (page 27, lines 15-20), wherein the triggering device is configured to at least one of indicate one or more events or mark one or more of a particular movement for synchronization thereof (page 27, lines 15-20)
a central processing unit (CPU) (412) (Fig. 4A) (page 37, lines 9-11) with storage coupled to the CPU for storing instructions (“memory,” page 12, lines 19-21) that when executed by the CPU cause the CPU to:
receive the first set of motion data from the image capture device related to a plurality of joints of a subject while the subject is performing a task (page 36, line 28 – page 37, line 11);
receive the second set of motion data from the external body motion sensor related to the plurality of joints of the subject while the subject is performing the task (page 38, lines 12-30), wherein the plurality of joints are located at different locations of the subject’s body (i.e., feet and ankles, page 36, line 28 – page 37, line 11 and page 38, lines 12-30);
correlate the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a validated data set about the subject’s movements (page 53, line 28 – page 54, line 5) (also see page 54, line 30 – page 55, line 2; and page 57, line 30 – page 58, line 6);
calculate kinematic and/or kinetic information about the plurality of joints of the subject from the validated data set (page 41, lines 21-25) (also see page 59, lines 4-11); and
output the kinematic and/or kinetic information for purposes of assessing a movement disorder (page 19, lines 17-19; page 25, lines 29-31; page 27, lines 14-20), wherein the kinematic and/or kinetic information output by the system comprises metrics representative of the subject’s movement characteristics (page 59, lines 4-11).
For claim 2, Mirelman further discloses a force plate (page 49, lines 19-22).
For claim 3, Mirelman further discloses wherein the CPU is further caused to: receive balance data from the force plate for correlation with the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a further validated data set about the subject’s movement (page 49, lines 19-22) (also see page 48, lines 10-13, “FOG” being described as a “gait abnormality”); calculate kinematic and/or kinetic information about the plurality of joints of a subject from the further validated data set (page 41, lines 21-25) (also see page 59, lines 4-11, the composite score comprising “gait parameters reflecting abnormal patterns”); and output the kinematic and/or kinetic information for purposes of assessing the movement disorder (page 19, lines 17-19; page 25, lines 29-31; page 27, lines 14-20).
For claim 4, Mirelman further discloses a device for eye tracking configured to obtain and transmit an eye tracking data set for correlation with the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a further validated data set about the subject’s movements (Examiner’s Note: see 112(f) invocation above) (“cameras (e.g., or others, such as “Kinect”-type motion, gesture, and posture capture cameras),” page 25, lines 5-7) (also see 408) (Fig. 4A) (page 36, line 31 - page 37, line 2).
For claim 6, Mirelman further discloses wherein the task is selected from the group consisting of: discrete flexion of a limb; discrete extension of a limb; continuous flexion of a limb; continuous extension of a limb; opening of a hand; closing of a hand; walking; rotation of a joint; holding a joint in a fixed posture; resting a joint; standing; and any combination thereof (as can be seen in Fig. 4A).
For claim 7, Mirelman further discloses wherein the movement disorder is selected from the group consisting of: Parkinson's disease; Parkinsonism; Dystonia; Cerebral Palsy; Bradykinesia; Chorea; Huntington's Disease; Ataxia; Tremor; Essential Tremor; Myoclonus; tics; Tourette Syndrome; Restless Leg Syndrome; and Stiff Person Syndrome (page 35, lines 16-32; and page 40, lines 20-23).
For claim 8, Mirelman further discloses wherein the external body motion sensor is an accelerometer (page 25, lines 18-22; page 31, lines 10-13; and page 38, lines 12-14).
For claim 9, Mirelman further discloses wherein the external body motion sensor further comprises a gyroscope and the second set of motion data further comprises gyroscopic data (page 25, lines 18-22; page 31, lines 10-13; and page 38, lines 12-14).
For claim 12, Mirelman further discloses wherein the at least one external body motion sensor is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) be worn by the subject (“acceleration and/or gyroscope sensors,” page 38, lines 12-20) (also see “accelerometers 410,” page 36, lines 28-30).
For claim 13, Mirelman further discloses wherein the metrics representative of the subject’s movement characteristics comprise one or more of a number of movements performed, movement mean speed, movement peak speed, range of motion, a stride length, relative movement, a stability of the joint, duration of the movement, smoothness of the movement, or the subject’s gait and/or posture characteristics (page 59, lines 4-11).
For claim 14, Mirelman further discloses wherein the triggering device comprises one or more of a user operated remote control, a keyboard, automatically via software based initiation, voice activation, or motion activation (page 27, lines 15-20).
For claim 15, Mirelman further discloses wherein the first set of motion data is obtained while at least one joint of the plurality of joints is held in a fixed position (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) (page 36, line 28 – page 37, line 11).
For claim 16, Mirelman further discloses wherein at least one joint of the plurality of joints is located in a lower limb, spine, trunk, an upper limb, or a head (page 43, lines 25-26) (also see page 36, line 28 – page 37, line 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 10-11, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirelman in view of WO 2012/101093 to Varaklis et al. (hereinafter “Varaklis”).
For claim 5, Mirelman does not expressly disclose a device for voice tracking configured to obtain and transmit a voice tracking data set for correlation with the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a further validated data set about the subject’s movements.
However, Varaklis teaches a device for voice tracking configured to obtain and transmit a voice tracking data set for correlation with the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a further validated data set about the subject’s movements (Examiner’s Note: see 112(f) invocation above) (para [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Mirelman to include a device for voice tracking configured to obtain and transmit a voice tracking data set for correlation with the first and second sets of motion data to obtain a further validated data set about the subject’s movements, in view of the teachings of Varaklis, for the obvious advantage of “assist[ing] in any identification, determination, diagnosis, prognosis, evaluation, prediction, assessment or therapy” (see para [0050] of Varaklis).
For claim 10, Mirelman does not expressly disclose wherein the CPU is further caused to render received data from the image capture device as a skeletal joint map.
However, Varaklis teaches rendering receive data from an image capture device as a skeletal joint map (para [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Mirelman wherein the CPU is further caused to render received data from the image capture device as a skeletal joint map, in view of the teachings of Varaklis, for the obvious advantage of tracking the skeleton of the patient and rendering an avatar that is associated with the bones of the skeletal model of the patient (see para [0040] of Varaklis).
For claim 11, Mirelman does not expressly disclose wherein software of the image capture device renders received data as a skeletal joint map and then sends the skeletal joint map to the CPU.
However, Varaklis teaches wherein software of an image capture device renders received data as a skeletal joint map and then sends the skeletal joint map to the CPU.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Mirelman wherein software of the image capture device renders received data as a skeletal joint map and then sends the skeletal joint map to the CPU, in view of the teachings of Varaklis, for the obvious advantage of tracking the skeleton of the patient and rendering an avatar that is associated with the bones of the skeletal model of the patient (see para [0040] of Varaklis).
For claim 17, Mirelman does not expressly disclose wherein the metrics representative of the subject’s movement characteristics are further derived by comparing the kinematic and/or kinetic information to a database comprising at least one of a population reference set or the subject’s prior set of kinematic and/or kinetic information.
However, Varaklis teaches deriving data by comparing kinematic and/or kinetic information to a database comprising at least one of a population reference set or the subject’s prior set of kinematic and/or kinetic information (para [0088] and [0123]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Mirelman wherein the metrics representative of the subject’s movement characteristics are further derived by comparing the kinematic and/or kinetic information to a database comprising at least one of a population reference set or the subject’s prior set of kinematic and/or kinetic information, in view of the teachings of Varaklis, for the obvious advantage of monitoring a patient’s progress over time.
For claim 18, Mirelman does not expressly disclose wherein the system is configured to output an assessment of the subject based on the derived metrics.
However, Varaklis teaches wherein the system is configured to output an assessment of the subject based on the derived metrics (para [0088] and [0123]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Mirelman wherein the system is configured to output an assessment of the subject based on the derived metrics, in view of the teachings of Varaklis, for the obvious advantage of monitoring a patient’s progress over time.
For claim 19, Mirelman does not expressly disclose wherein the database is stored in or accessible by the CPU.
However, Varaklis teaches wherein the database is stored in or accessible by the CPU (as can be seen in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Mirelman wherein the database is stored in or accessible by the CPU, in view of the teachings of Varaklis, for the obvious advantage of processing the data in the database by the CPU.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights