DETAILED ACTION
This first non-final action is in response to applicants’ original filing on 12/05/2024. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been considered as follows.
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 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.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/05/2024 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 has been placed in the application file, and the information referred therein has been considered as to the merits.
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 2, 3, 8, and 9 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "The methods of claim 1" in line 1, but it is unclear and indefinite as to what plurality of methods is being referred to since claim 1 recites a single method.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "The methods of claim 1" in line 1, but it is unclear and indefinite as to what plurality of methods is being referred to since claim 1 recites a single method.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "The methods of claim 7" in line 1, but it is unclear and indefinite as to what plurality of methods is being referred to since claim 7 recites a single method.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said a data stores" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleck (US 20220164478 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 20130060579 A1, hereinafter Yu).
As to Claim 1:
Fleck discloses a method (e.g. Fleck “method for improving electronic data security including receiving a record containing personally identifiable information (PII) with at least one data field and receiving schema information” [Abstract]; [0006]) including:
disposing a plurality of administration engines on a plurality of remote processing devices, said processing devices coupled to an anonymization engine through a network (e.g. Fleck “A client-server system may rely on “engines” which include processor-readable instructions (or code) to effectuate different elements of a design. Each engine may be responsible for differing operations and may reside in whole or in part on a client, server or other device. As disclosed herein a display engine, a data engine, an execution engine, a user interface (UI) engine and the like may be employed. These engines may seek and gather information about events from remote data sources. Besides engines for querying and reporting on data, certain embodiments may also include an anonymizer engine” [0043]), said anonymization engine operable to replace personally identifiable information (PII) with a unique identifier (e.g. Fleck “The anonymization engine provides for data transfer between a data source and a data recipient while obfuscating or securing PII. This anonymization engine may include one or more of the following capabilities: Providing a new and unique identifying value (Anonymous ID) for an entity when requested by a data source providing PII” [0047]-[0048]; [0049]-[0072]);
coupling the plurality of administration engines to a server through the network (e.g. Fleck FIG. 1 server coupled to client devices through network [0037]-[0041]; clients running engines [0043]);
transmitting a first query to a first administration engine and receiving a first result in response to said first query, said first result including first contextual information and a first unique identifier (e.g. Fleck “query the structured data source and return the response to said querying for each record. The PII may have multiple data fields and said returning includes replacing the PII with the response to said querying. The processing of each PII may include instructions to either mask, ignore, or redact the PII based on the schema information mapping” [0007]; engines for querying [0043]; “engine provides for data transfer between a data source and a data recipient while obfuscating or securing PII. This anonymization engine may include one or more of the following capabilities: [0048] Providing a new and unique identifying value (Anonymous ID) for an entity when requested by a data source providing PII. [0049] Enabling a data recipient to receive the same, but unique, Anonymous ID” [0047]; PII sends result to queries including Poly IDs and contextual data [0086]);
transmitting a second query to a second administration engine and receiving a second result in response to said second query, said second result including second contextual information and a second unique identifier, said second contextual information including information different from said first contextual information (e.g. Fleck FIG. 5 data source “Also receiving at the server a second recordset, said second recordset including a second poly-identifier representing a second personally identifiable information (PII) and a second contextual information” [0008]; query data from second remote data source [0043]; [0074]; [0076]; receiving contextual data and Poly ID from difference second source [0086]);
associating the first contextual information with the second contextual information in response to the first and second unique identifier (e.g. Fleck “contextual data 522 from different sources 520 may be matched for future processing. Matching data may be effectuated using techniques described herein. The matched contextual data 524 from multiple data sources may now be passed to a data aggregator for further processing with the Poly ID 512 standing in the place of the original PII. The match table includes record matching information from data source 1 516 and data sources 2 520 such that queries indicate the contextual data 518 and 522 are from the same person” [0086]); and
querying the first and second contextual information to determine one or more relationships between the first and second contextual information (e.g. Fleck “comparing the first and second contextual information to calculate a correlation score to create a match table entry as a result of said comparing, said match table entry including both an internal ID and an external anonymous ID” [0008]; “student academic data such as attendance records may be analyzed in relationship with the medical care and services those students have received. Al without divulging PII” [0143]);
But Fleck does not specifically disclose:
formatting the first contextual information and the second contextual information to ensure data compatibility.
However, the analogous art Yu does disclose formatting the first contextual information and the second contextual information to ensure data compatibility (e.g. Yu “the medical facilities may require that medical files and/or other data files that are transferred into and/or out of the medical facility be converted into a different file format and/or type so that the medical files, medical system messages, and/or other data files are compatible with and/or may be read by the systems and/or computer systems… This converting, transformation and/or reformatting process can be specific down to the individual character” [0199]; “the client server system at the destination medical facility is configured to confirm the medical files into a format that is compatible for the PACS and other systems at the destination medical facility” [0126]). Fleck and Yu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in anonymization of user data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fleck and Yu before him or her, to modify the disclosure of Fleck with the teachings of Yu to include formatting the first contextual information and the second contextual information to ensure data compatibility as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow transferring and processing of medical files by different parties (Yu [0202]; [0203]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fleck and Yu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
As to Claim 2:
Fleck in view of Yu discloses the methods of claim 1 further including templating to map data from differing data sources into a standard format (e.g. Yu “a system for electronically transferring medical files from a source medical facility to a destination medical facility comprises a procedure mapping module configured to map, translate, or rename the code and/or name of a medical procedure performed at the source medical facility into the procedure code and/or name used by the destination medical facility. The procedure mapping module can be configured to use a standardized mapping table or a standardized intermediary code system to map, translate, or rename the code and/or name of a medical procedure performed at the source medical facility into the procedure code and/or name used by the destination medical facility” [0018]; [0058]; “the system is configured to map medical procedure codes and/or names at destination and/or source medical facilities to a standardized mapping table and/or a standardized intermediary code system. By using a standardized mapping table and/or a standardized intermediary code system the complexity of maintaining separate mappings for each institution can be reduced” [0180]; [0182]; HL7 Standard [0187]). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Fleck and Yu as in Claim 1.
As to Claim 3:
Fleck in view of Yu discloses the methods of claim 1 wherein the first contextual information is academic information (e.g. Fleck “For example, and without limitation, for the first time ever, student academic data such as attendance records may be analyzed in relationship with the medical care and services those students have received” [0143]).
As to Claim 4:
Fleck in view of Yu discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the first contextual information is health information (e.g. Fleck “Contextual data is generally data associated with PII but is not personally identifiable. For example, and without limitation, a medical record may include a patient name, age, height, weight, blood pressure and other information” [0046]; “For example, and without limitation, for the first time ever, student academic data such as attendance records may be analyzed in relationship with the medical care and services those students have received” [0143]).
As to Claim 6:
Fleck in view of Yu discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the unique identifier is created using Poly-pseudonymization (e.g. Fleck “FIG. 8 shows a process for poly-pseudonymization that may be employed in some embodiments. Poly-pseudonymization may be used to anonymize PII, not by removing all of the PII but instead by replacing it with syntactically correct but inherently inaccurate values” [0120]; “In FIG. 8 a sundered record 810 for account 12345 has a first name encoded as 212 and a last name encoded as 343. Without poly-pseudonymization the key table 812 would equate to the name to Chris Gomez. It should be noted that Chris Gomez is not the actual name found in the specific account holder but is instead a sundered representation of the account holder's real name. In this instance Chris Gomez is a pseudonym for the account holder's true name. Additionally, with poly-pseudonymization a seed value may be used to skew the key table information and generate any number of pseudonyms. As shown in FIG. 8, a seed value of 1, skews the key up one so that the first name returned is Sally and the last name returned is Jones 814. Moreover, seed value may be positive, negative, or set by other means such as a time stamp, the day of the year, or an identifier unique to the party receiving the record information” [0121]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleck in view of Yu as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Sears et al. (US 20140100249 A1, hereinafter Sears).
As to Claim 5:
Fleck in view of Yu discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose:
the one or more relationships between the first and second contextual information indicate academic performance and mental health.
However, the analogous art Sears does disclose the one or more relationships between the first and second contextual information indicate academic performance and mental health (e.g. Sears “Untreated ADHD is to known to have significant long-term consequences including loss of academic performance” [0003]; “This correlates with the finding that regularity in breakfast consumption has been linked with improvement in academic performance and psychosocial functioning” [0009]; “a patient is assessed on severity of mental illness at the time of rating” [0081]; “an increase in attentiveness by an individual is measured by, without limitation, the p academic performance rating scale” [0032]; “attentiveness is measured using one or more of the following ADHD screening tools and rating scales for children and adolescents, including, without limitation, academic performance rating scale, ADD evaluation scale-3rd edition (ADDES-3), ADHD rating scale-IV” [0082]). Fleck, Yu, and Sears are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in user health data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fleck, Yu, and Sears before him or her, to modify the combination of Fleck and Yu with the teachings of Sears to include the one or more relationships between the first and second contextual information indicate academic performance and mental health as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow determining improvement in mental health of individuals based on attentiveness as measured by academic performance (Sears [0202]; [0245]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fleck, Yu, and Sears to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleck in view of Sears.
As to Claim 7:
Fleck discloses a method (e.g. Fleck “method for improving electronic data security including receiving a record containing personally identifiable information (PII) with at least one data field and receiving schema information” [Abstract]; [0006]) including:
receiving, at a server, a first contextual information from a first remote data source, said first remote data source including health information and a first poly-anonymous identifier (e.g. Fleck “receiving at a server a first recordset, said first recordset including a first poly-identifier representing a first personally identifiable information (PII), and a first contextual information, said first poly-identifier comprised of unique characters associated with a name field of a record in a PII structured data store” [0008]; “medical information” [0002]; medical, dental, and psychological data [0003]; “person's medical history and treatment” [0004]; “a medical record may include a patient name, age, height, weight, blood pressure and other information” [0046]);
receiving at the server a second contextual information from a second remote data source, said second remote data source including academic information and a second poly-anonymous identifier (e.g. Fleck “receiving at the server a second recordset, said second recordset including a second poly-identifier representing a second personally identifiable information (PII) and a second contextual information, said second poly-identifier comprised of unique characters” [0008]; “student academic data such as attendance records may be analyzed in relationship with the medical care and services those students have received. Al without divulging PII” [0143]);
correlating the first and second contextual information in response to matching poly-anonymous identifiers, wherein (e.g. Fleck “returns Poly IDs 512. The Poly ID 512 can be used to replace PII 514 in an original data source 516. For example, and without limitation, Data Source 1 516 includes both PII 514 and contextual data 518. Moreover, because Poly IDs are unique to a specific domain, contextual data 522 from different sources 520 may be matched for future processing. Matching data may be effectuated using techniques described herein. The matched contextual data 524 from multiple data sources may now be passed to a data aggregator for further processing with the Poly ID 512 standing in the place of the original PII. The match table includes record matching information from data source 1 516 and data sources 2 520 such that queries indicate the contextual data 518 and 522 are from the same person” [0086]),
relationships between the first and second contextual information is quantified (e.g. Fleck “comparing the first and second contextual information to calculate a correlation score to create a match table entry as a result of said comparing, said match table entry including both an internal ID and an external anonymous ID” [0008]; [0074]);
But Fleck does not specifically disclose:
mental health information.
However, the analogous art Sears does disclose mental health information (e.g. Sears “Untreated ADHD is to known to have significant long-term consequences including loss of academic performance” [0003]; “This correlates with the finding that regularity in breakfast consumption has been linked with improvement in academic performance and psychosocial functioning” [0009]; “a patient is assessed on severity of mental illness at the time of rating” [0081]; “an increase in attentiveness by an individual is measured by, without limitation, the p academic performance rating scale” [0032]; “attentiveness is measured using one or more of the following ADHD screening tools and rating scales for children and adolescents, including, without limitation, academic performance rating scale, ADD evaluation scale-3rd edition (ADDES-3), ADHD rating scale-IV” [0082]). Fleck, Yu, and Sears are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in user health data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fleck and Sears before him or her, to modify the disclosure of Fleck with the teachings of Sears to include mental health information as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow determining improvement in mental health of individuals based on attentiveness as measured by academic performance (Sears [0202]; [0245]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fleck and Sears to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleck in view of Sears as applied to Claim 7, and further in view of Yu.
As to Claim 8:
Fleck in view of Sears discloses the methods of claim 7 but does not specifically disclose:
templating to map data from the first contextual information and the second contextual information sources into a standard format.
However, the analogous art Yu does disclose templating to map data from the first contextual information and the second contextual information sources into a standard format (e.g. Yu “a system for electronically transferring medical files from a source medical facility to a destination medical facility comprises a procedure mapping module configured to map, translate, or rename the code and/or name of a medical procedure performed at the source medical facility into the procedure code and/or name used by the destination medical facility. The procedure mapping module can be configured to use a standardized mapping table or a standardized intermediary code system to map, translate, or rename the code and/or name of a medical procedure performed at the source medical facility into the procedure code and/or name used by the destination medical facility” [0018]; [0058]; “the system is configured to map medical procedure codes and/or names at destination and/or source medical facilities to a standardized mapping table and/or a standardized intermediary code system. By using a standardized mapping table and/or a standardized intermediary code system the complexity of maintaining separate mappings for each institution can be reduced” [0180]; [0182]; HL7 Standard [0187]). Fleck, Sears, and Yu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in user health data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fleck, Sears, and Yu before him or her, to modify the combination of Fleck and Sears with the teachings of Yu to include templating to map data from the first contextual information and the second contextual information sources into a standard format as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow transferring and processing of medical files by different parties (Yu [0202]; [0203]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fleck, Sears, and Yu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn et al. (US 20160140296 A1, hereinafter Quinn) in view of Fleck.
As to Claim 9:
Quinn discloses a method (e.g. Quinn “method that comprises receiving, a user request from a first system user of a plurality of system users for a communication of health data with a health information system. The health information system includes a data store that stores health data related to the plurality of system users” [Abstract]; [0010]) including:
presenting to a user a menu (e.g. Quinn “if authenticated, user application engine 320 generates a user interface, such as the screenshot 700 of FIG. 7, which is described below, for display on patient interface 226 for patient 208 to select an action” [0127]; FIG. 7 menu), said menu including a first menu item, said first menu item representing a first data source including a first contextual information (e.g. Quinn “FIG. 7 illustrates a screenshot 700 for patient main menu options in health information processing system 202 for patient 208. Screenshot 700 comprises a tool bar 702, a plurality of menus 604a and 604b” [0139]; “Option menu 730 comprises a personal data selection element 730a for the user to access, add, or modify personal data, such as personal information, medical history and conditions, pharmaceuticals that the patient is or was prescribed or over the counter medications, wellness, and financial information, such as credit card or bank information for payment for services from health information processing system 202” [0140]; “Option menu 730 comprises a data device selection element 730c for the user to access, add, or modify information regarding health data source 227, such device selection… Health data sources 227 that are available to a patient 208 may be determined by provider 204, payer 206, or health information processing system 202 based on personal data, health, wellness, or other factors of patient 208” [0142]; FIG. 2 health data sources 227);
said menu further including a second menu item, said second menu item representing a second data source including a second contextual information, said second contextual information different from the first contextual information (e.g. Quinn “Option menu 730 comprises a health issues prioritization selection element 730e for the user to access, add, or modify the user's priority of health issues, such as medical conditions, medications, health data sources 227, or health applications for health data source 227” [0144]; [0145]; FIG. 2, 8; health data sources [0142]);
receiving from a user, a plurality of menu items selections (e.g. Quinn user application engine receives patient selected requests [0128]-[0132]; receiving user selection of elements to access various data [0140]-[0151]);
But Quinn does not specifically disclose:
querying each of said a data stores for contextual information, said contextual information not including PII, and
correlating the first and second contextual information to form matched contextual information.
However, the analogous art Fleck does disclose querying each of said a data stores for contextual information, said contextual information not including PII (e.g. Fleck “query the structured data source and return the response to said querying for each record. The PII may have multiple data fields and said returning includes replacing the PII with the response to said querying. The processing of each PII may include instructions to either mask, ignore, or redact the PII based on the schema information mapping” [0007]; “receiving at a server a first recordset, said first recordset including a first poly-identifier representing a first personally identifiable information (PII), and a first contextual information…receiving at the server a second recordset, said second recordset including a second poly-identifier representing a second personally identifiable information (PII) and a second contextual information” [0008]; “Contextual data is generally data associated with PII but is not personally identifiable. For example, and without limitation, a medical record may include a patient name, age, height, weight, blood pressure and other information. The patent name is PII, while the remainder of the record is contextual data” [0046]), and correlating the first and second contextual information to form matched contextual information (e.g. Fleck “Then comparing the first and second contextual information to calculate a correlation score to create a match table entry as a result of said comparing, said match table entry including both an internal ID and an external anonymous ID” [0008]; “contextual data 522 from different sources 520 may be matched for future processing. Matching data may be effectuated using techniques described herein. The matched contextual data 524 from multiple data sources may now be passed to a data aggregator for further processing with the Poly ID 512 standing in the place of the original PII. The match table includes record matching information from data source 1 516 and data sources 2 520 such that queries indicate the contextual data 518 and 522 are from the same person” [0086]). Quinn and Fleck are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in anonymization of user data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Quinn and Fleck before him or her, to modify the disclosure of Quinn with the teachings of Fleck to include querying each of said a data stores for contextual information, said contextual information not including PII, and correlating the first and second contextual information to form matched contextual information as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow easy collation, sharing and transfer of information between people and organizations that could benefit from easy access to the information (Fleck [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Quinn and Fleck to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
As to Claim 10:
Quinn in view of Fleck discloses the method of claim 9 wherein the first contextual information is health information (e.g. Quinn “The health information system includes a data store that stores health data related to the plurality of system users” [Abstract]; see also Fleck “Contextual data is generally data associated with PII but is not personally identifiable. For example, and without limitation, a medical record may include a patient name, age, height, weight, blood pressure and other information” [0046]; “For example, and without limitation, for the first time ever, student academic data such as attendance records may be analyzed in relationship with the medical care and services those students have received” [0143]). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Quinn and Fleck as in Claim 9.
As to Claim 12:
Quinn in view of Fleck discloses the method of claim 9 wherein a unique identifier is created in lieu of PII (e.g. Fleck “a unique identifier associated with one or more fields in the record in response to the schema information and then modifying the unique identifier to create a pseudo-identifier” [0007]; “the PII and the data source ID may be fed to an anonymizer to create a unique “external” ID that is used only by that data source or the data recipient” [0073]; “A poly-anonymous identifier 512 is a unique identifier stripped of any recognizable PII such as an External Anonymous ID referenced herein… created dynamically” [0085]; [0086]). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Quinn and Fleck as in Claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn in view of Fleck as applied to Claim 9, and further in view of Sears.
As to Claim 11:
Quinn in view of Fleck discloses the method of claim 9, but does not specifically disclose:
correlating the first and second contextual information indicates academic performance and mental health.
However, the analogous art Sears does disclose correlating the first and second contextual information indicates academic performance and mental health (e.g. Sears “Untreated ADHD is to known to have significant long-term consequences including loss of academic performance” [0003]; “This correlates with the finding that regularity in breakfast consumption has been linked with improvement in academic performance and psychosocial functioning” [0009]; “a patient is assessed on severity of mental illness at the time of rating” [0081]; “an increase in attentiveness by an individual is measured by, without limitation, the p academic performance rating scale” [0032]; “attentiveness is measured using one or more of the following ADHD screening tools and rating scales for children and adolescents, including, without limitation, academic performance rating scale, ADD evaluation scale-3rd edition (ADDES-3), ADHD rating scale-IV” [0082]). Quinn, Fleck, and Sears are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in user medical data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Quinn, Fleck, and Sears before him or her, to modify the combination of Quinn and Fleck with the teachings of Sears to include correlating the first and second contextual information indicates academic performance and mental health as claimed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow determining improvement in mental health of individuals based on attentiveness as measured by academic performance (Sears [0202]; [0245]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Quinn, Fleck, and Sears to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure.
Abuelsaad et al. (US 20120303616 A1)
Clements (US 20130144790 A1)
Fleck (US 20210328776 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenneth Chang whose telephone number is (571)270-7530. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/KENNETH W CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
PNG
media_image1.png
35
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
02.25.2026