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 .
Remarks
The amendments were received on 1/30/26. Claims 1-8 and 12-15 are pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments are carefully and respectfully considered.
Claims 1-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam (US 2023/0005573), and further in view of Broverman et al. (US 2004/0249664).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam in view of Broverman, and further in view of Lingard et al. (US 2012/0101838).
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 1-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong One asks: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? See MPEP 2106.04 Part I. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
The limitation of “export the common items and the received contents for the common items to the at least two detailed performance documents”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “export” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually copying data to documents.
The limitation of changing “(i) a type of the second item, (ii) an input screen for the second item, and/or (iii) contents to be received for the second item,”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, dependently changing data in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally, or with pen and paper, analyzing data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 recites a memory, a communication unit, a display unit, and a processor to execute the operations, however, this is recited as a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claim 15 recites a processor, which is also recited as a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the claim recites “provide an input screen,” “receive input of contents,” changing “(i) a type of the second item, (ii) an input screen for the second item, and/or (iii) contents to be received for the second item,” and “receiving the modification and reflecting the received modification in at least some of the plurality of detailed performance documents.” These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to “receive input of contents” and “receiving the modification”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
With respect to “provide an input screen”, the courts have found limitations directed towards outputting to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
With respect to “reflecting the received modification in at least some of the plurality of detailed performance documents”, the courts have found limitations directed towards storing to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts") and “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2-8, 12, and 13, the limitations further define the elements identified in claim 1 and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam (US 2023/0005573), and further in view of Broverman et al. (US 2004/0249664).
With respect to claim 1, Ramanujam teaches a computer-implemented method for generating a technical construction file for a reagent for detecting a target nucleic acid molecule, the method comprising:
providing an input … for items common to at least two or more detailed performance experiments among a plurality of detailed performance experiments (Ramanujam, pa 0019, "CRF" refers to a paper or electronic questionnaire specifically used in clinical trial research. CRFs contain data obtained during a patient's participation in a clinical trial. A sponsor of the clinical trial develops the CRF to collect specific data they need in order to test their hypotheses or answer their research questions. Examiner Note: clinical trial research involves data from a plurality of “experiments”) wherein the technical construction file includes two or more detailed performance documents including the at least two or more detailed performance experiments (Ramanujam, pa 0030, The clinical data standards (CDS) automated system generates a define package 215a based on the annotated CRF 205 and mapped metadata using the define package generator 215. The define package 215a comprises define.xml files. … The define package 215a further comprises the mapping specification 213a, the SDTM dataset 214a, the annotated CRF 205, and the define.xml file for submission.);
receiving input of contents for the common items at once (Ramanujam, pa 0022, After preprocessing performed by the CDS automated system, the machine learning (ML) model predicts appropriate CRF annotations for the extracted text and the attributes. The ML model sends the predicted CRF annotations and their corresponding text and the attributes to an application in the CDS automated system. Examiner Note: “the common items” are interpreted as referring to “items common to at least two or more detailed performance experiments”); and
exporting the common items and the received contents for the common items to the two or more detailed performance documents to generate the two or more detailed performance documents (Ramanujam, pa 0030, The clinical data standards (CDS) automated system generates a define package 215a based on the annotated CRF 205 and mapped metadata using the define package generator 215. The define package 215a comprises define.xml files. … The define package 215a further comprises the mapping specification 213a, the SDTM dataset 214a, the annotated CRF 205, and the define.xml file for submission.).
Ramanujam doesn't expressly discuss providing an input screen for items common to at least two or more detailed performance experiments among a plurality of detailed performance experiments for the reagent for detecting the target nucleic acid molecule; wherein at least one of the common items includes a first item being a type of enzyme and a second item being an amplification protocol used in an amplification reaction, and depending on contents received for the first item, (i) a type of the second item, (ii) an input screen for the second item, and/or (iii) contents to be received for the second item are dependently changed; and wherein, when a modification to the received contents occurs, the method further comprises receiving the modification and reflecting the received modification in at least some of the plurality of detailed performance documents.
Broverman teaches providing an input screen for items common to at least two or more detailed performance experiments among a plurality of detailed performance experiments for the reagent for detecting the target nucleic acid molecule (Broverman, pa 0059, FIG. 3 is a screen shot of the Management_Diagram class object for the iCP, illustrated the workflow diagram for the clinical trial protocol of FIG. 2. The workflow diagram sets forth the clinical algorithm, that is, the sequence of steps, decisions and actions that the protocol specification requires to take place during the course of treating a patient under the particular protocol. The algorithm is maintained as sets of task organized as a graph 310, illustrated in the left-hand pane of the screen shot of FIG. 3.).
wherein at least one of the common items includes a first item being a type of enzyme and a second item being an amplification protocol used in an amplification reaction (Examiner note: this language is determined to be non-functional to the claim because the type of testing has no effect on the functioning of the claimed method), and depending on contents received for the first item, (i) a type of the second item, (ii) an input screen for the second item, and/or (iii) contents to be received for the second item are dependently changed (Broverman, Fig. 3 & pa 0063, If in step 334, the patient is not post-menopausal, then workflow proceeds to a "Consider Tamoxifen" choice_step object 338. In this step, the physician using clinical judgment determines whether the patient should be given Tamoxifen. If so (choice object 340), then the patient continues to the "Begin Tamoxifen" step object 336. If not (choice object 342), then workflow proceeds directly to the long-term follow-up sub-guideline object 332.); and
wherein, when a modification to the received contents occurs, the method further comprises receiving the modification and reflecting the received modification in at least some of the plurality of detailed performance documents (Broverman, pa 0102, The user can assign or change the value of a simple element through the use of a workpane associated with that element type, invoked through the design guide or shortcut buttons, or by appropriate behavior relative to either the place where the element appears in the chooser pane or a place where a reference to it has been instantiated in the document. In all such methods, the protocol design tool 110 makes the desired change to the element in the iCP instance 122 when the user signals a commit, and the document creator 128 then refreshes all references in the document to the same iCP element.).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Ramanujam with the teachings of Broverman because it ensures consistency across references to protocol elements within an evolving document or document collection (Broverman, pa 0095).
With respect to claim 2, Ramanujam in view of Broverman teaches the method of claim 1, wherein types of performance to be tested in the plurality of detailed performance experiments include at least one of analytical sensitivity, analytical specificity, reproducibility, repeatability, and stability of the detection reagent (Examiner note: this language is determined to be non-functional to the claim because the type of testing has no effect on the functioning of the claimed method).
With respect to claim 3, Ramanujam in view of Broverman teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the items provided through the input screen include at least two of experimental materials, experimental equipment, sample preparation, and experimental methods for the detailed performance experiments (Examiner note: this language is determined to be non-functional to the claim because the type of testing has no effect on the functioning of the claimed method).
With respect to claim 4, Ramanujam in view of Broverman teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the item for the sample preparation includes an item for nucleic acid extraction method (Examiner note: this language is determined to be non-functional to the claim because the type of testing has no effect on the functioning of the claimed method).
With respect to claim 5, Ramanujam in view of Broverman teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the item for the experimental method includes an item for preparation of amplification reaction (Examiner note: this language is determined to be non-functional to the claim because the type of testing has no effect on the functioning of the claimed method).
With respect to claim 6, Ramanujam in view of Broverman teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the item for the experimental materials includes items for organism names of microorganism strains and purchase source information (Examiner note: this language is determined to be non-functional to the claim because the type of testing has no effect on the functioning of the claimed method).
With respect to claim 7, Ramanujam in view of Broverman teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the item for preparation of amplification reaction includes items for volume of each material constituting an amplification reaction mixture, the type of container containing the amplification reaction mixture, and information on PCR protocol (Examiner note: this language is determined to be non-functional to the claim because the type of testing has no effect on the functioning of the claimed method).
With respect to claim 8, Ramanujam in view of Broverman teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the items include a type of enzyme (Examiner note: this language is determined to be non-functional to the claim because the type of testing has no effect on the functioning of the claimed method).
With respect to claim 14, Ramanujam computer device for generating a technical construction file, comprising:
a memory storing at least one instruction (Ramanujam, Fig. 8, memory unit 806);
a communication unit configured to perform communication with a database (Ramanujam, Fig. 8, database server 803 & pa 0039, CDS system 800 communicates with database server via network);
a display unit (Ramanujam, Fig. 8, display screen 801); and
a processor for executing the at least one instruction to generate a technical construction file of a reagent for detecting a target analyte (Ramanujam, Fig. 8, processor 805 & pa 0006, Examiner note: the language “to generate a technical construction file of a reagent for detecting a target analyte” is determined to be intended use of the instruction), wherein the technical construction file includes two or more detailed performance documents including at least two detailed performance experiments (Ramanujam, pa 0030, The clinical data standards (CDS) automated system generates a define package 215a based on the annotated CRF 205 and mapped metadata using the define package generator 215. The define package 215a comprises define.xml files. … The define package 215a further comprises the mapping specification 213a, the SDTM dataset 214a, the annotated CRF 205, and the define.xml file for submission.), and wherein the processor is configured to:
provide an input … for items common to the at least two detailed performance experiments among a plurality of detailed performance experiments (Ramanujam, pa 0019, "CRF" refers to a paper or electronic questionnaire specifically used in clinical trial research. CRFs contain data obtained during a patient's participation in a clinical trial. A sponsor of the clinical trial develops the CRF to collect specific data they need in order to test their hypotheses or answer their research questions. Examiner Note: clinical trial research involves data from a plurality of “experiments”);
receive input of contents for the common items at once (Ramanujam, pa 0022, After preprocessing performed by the CDS automated system, the machine learning (ML) model predicts appropriate CRF annotations for the extracted text and the attributes. The ML model sends the predicted CRF annotations and their corresponding text and the attributes to an application in the CDS automated system. Examiner Note: “the common items” are interpreted as referring to “items common to at least two or more detailed performance experiments”); and
export the common items and the received contents for the common items to the at least two detailed performance documents to generate the two or more detailed performance documents (Ramanujam, pa 0030, The clinical data standards (CDS) automated system generates a define package 215a based on the annotated CRF 205 and mapped metadata using the define package generator 215. The define package 215a comprises define.xml files. … The define package 215a further comprises the mapping specification 213a, the SDTM dataset 214a, the annotated CRF 205, and the define.xml file for submission.).
Ramanujam doesn't expressly discuss providing an input screen for items common to at least two or more detailed performance experiments among a plurality of detailed performance experiments for the reagent for detecting the target nucleic acid molecule.
Broverman teaches provide an input screen for items common to the at least two detailed performance experiments among a plurality of detailed performance experiments for the reagent for detecting the target nucleic acid molecule (Broverman, pa 0059, FIG. 3 is a screen shot of the Management_Diagram class object for the iCP, illustrated the workflow diagram for the clinical trial protocol of FIG. 2. The workflow diagram sets forth the clinical algorithm, that is, the sequence of steps, decisions and actions that the protocol specification requires to take place during the course of treating a patient under the particular protocol. The algorithm is maintained as sets of task organized as a graph 310, illustrated in the left-hand pane of the screen shot of FIG. 3.).
wherein at least one of the common items includes a first item being a type of enzyme and a second item being an amplification protocol used in an amplification reaction (Examiner note: this language is determined to be non-functional to the claim because the type of testing has no effect on the functioning of the claimed method), and
wherein, depending on contents received for the first item, the processor is configured to dependently change (i) a type of the second item, (ii) an input screen for the second item, and/or (iii) contents to be received for the second item (Broverman, Fig. 3 & pa 0063, If in step 334, the patient is not post-menopausal, then workflow proceeds to a "Consider Tamoxifen" choice_step object 338. In this step, the physician using clinical judgment determines whether the patient should be given Tamoxifen. If so (choice object 340), then the patient continues to the "Begin Tamoxifen" step object 336. If not (choice object 342), then workflow proceeds directly to the long-term follow-up sub-guideline object 332.); and
wherein, when a modification to the received contents occurs, the processor is further configured to receive the modification and reflect the received modification in at least some of the plurality of detailed performance documents (Broverman, pa 0102, The user can assign or change the value of a simple element through the use of a workpane associated with that element type, invoked through the design guide or shortcut buttons, or by appropriate behavior relative to either the place where the element appears in the chooser pane or a place where a reference to it has been instantiated in the document. In all such methods, the protocol design tool 110 makes the desired change to the element in the iCP instance 122 when the user signals a commit, and the document creator 128 then refreshes all references in the document to the same iCP element.).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Ramanujam with the teachings of Broverman because it ensures consistency across references to protocol elements within an evolving document or document collection (Broverman, pa 0095).
With respect to claim 15, the limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam in view of Broverman, and further in view of Lingard et al. (US 2012/0101838).
With respect to claim 12, Ramanujam in view of Broverman teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Ramanujam in view of Broverman doesn't expressly discuss wherein the technical construction file is a document requiring approval, and includes information about participants involved in the approval and details about each participant.
Lingard teaches wherein the technical construction file is a document requiring approval, and includes information about participants involved in the approval and details about each participant (Lingard, pa 0058, In countries where notification is required, tracking of such notification occurs in block 78, including date of submission, documents, sites, identification of who was notified and by whom on what date, and other matters. In block 80, approval of submissions is tracked including date of approval, conditions or comments and other matters. If non-approval occurs, block 82 of the workflow involves tracking the non-approval including reasons, identification of who did not approve, the date of non-approval).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified because it provides regulatory authority from the government or other committee to be ensured (Lingard, pa 0001).
With respect to claim 13, Ramanujam in view of Broverman and Lingard teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the participants involved in the approval include an author, a reviewer, and a final approver of the technical construction file (Lingard, pa 0044, Any or all of these steps may be subject to supervision by a clinical lead person ("Clinical Lead"), a regulatory team lead person ("RTL") and/or other relevant personnel.).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues that under Step 2A Prong One, claims 1, 14, and 15 do not recite mental processes because they are directed to a technical means for controlling user interface behaviors and document-generation processes. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim elements that Applicant has pointed to for providing technical means were determined to be elements additional to the abstract idea. The identified abstract idea is provided by “export the common items and the received contents for the common items to the at least two detailed performance documents” and changing “(i) a type of the second item, (ii) an input screen for the second item, and/or (iii) contents to be received for the second item.” These limitations are similar to those found by the courts to be abstract. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) part III section A. "Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant points to several features that recite additional elements and state that they integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no claimed element related to “a single input structure.” Dependent modification of an amplification protocol item according to a type of enzyme refers to the claim element “wherein at least one of the common items includes a first item being a type of enzyme and a second item being an amplification protocol used in an amplification reaction, and depending on contents received for the first item, (i) a type of the second item, (ii) an input screen for the second item, and/or (iii) contents to be received for the second item are dependently changed.” Dependently changing data in response to a value of other data is akin to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “A document-generation logic in which modified input contents are automatically reflected in a plurality of detailed performance documents” likely refers to the claim elements “wherein, when a modification to the received contents occurs, the method further comprises receiving the modification and reflecting the received modification in at least some of the plurality of detailed performance documents.” These limitations recite additional elements, however, they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. The courts have previously analyzed cases that describe such storing and maintaining of data and have found limitations directed towards storing to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts") and “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that Ramanujam fails to teach “detailed performance documents” because the CRFs are already completed whereas the “detailed performance documents” are generated at a stage prior to CRF creation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language does not require the detailed performance documents to be generated at a stage prior to CRF creation. In fact, the claims receive contents for “the two or more detailed performance documents to generate the two or more detailed performance documents.” Therefore, the claims do not include limitations that require the detailed performance documents to be generated before the CRF.
Applicant argues that Ramanujam fails to teach “receiving input of contents for the common items at once” because Ramanujam does not describe items common across a plurality of CRFs and receiving common items through a single input. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims define “the common items” as “items common to at least two or more detailed performance experiments.” The “at least two or more detailed performance experiments” are equivalent to the case report forms (CRFs) containing data obtained during a patient's participation in a clinical trial (Ramanujam, pa 0019). Ramanujam’s teaching of CRFs containing data obtained during a patient’s participation in a clinical trial provides a document (CRF) with common items. A clinical trial includes more than one participant, providing “at least two or more.” The NLP engine extracts the required intend, for example, sentences, from a questionnaire available in several case report forms (CRFs), for example, pages, as part of preprocessing of the text information performed in the CDS automated system. The questionnaire comprises sentences received from a user (Ramanujam, pa 0020). The “questionnaire available in several case report forms (CRFs)” provide “common items.” The clinical data standards (CDS) automated system predicts 102 one or more automatic case report form (CRF) annotations on the extracted metadata using the machine learning model and records new leanings in the CDS automated system with minimal user intervention (Ramanujam, pa 0021-0022). The determined annotations for extracted text provides “input of contents for the common items.” Further, the claims do not require “a single input” as argued. Ramanujam discloses sending CRF annotations, text, and attributes to an application in the CDS automated system, providing reception by the CDS system of the common item contents at once.
With respect to the “dependent change” feature, Applicant seems to argue a newly amended limitation. Applicant’s amendment has rendered the previous rejection moot. Upon further consideration of the amendment, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Broverman et al. (US 2004/0249664).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY N ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3566. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:00 pm 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/BRITTANY N ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169