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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendments filed 10 March 2026:
Claims 21-22 are cancelled
Claims 15, 17, 19 and 23-28 are amended
Claims 15-20, 23-28 are pending
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 15-20, 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 15, 19, 23, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite methods and systems, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of
Claims 15, 19, 23, 27 (Claim 23 being representative)
receiving a first wireless signal comprising information identifying at least one [device] and biometric information identifying a user;
registering the user;
receiving a second wireless signal communicating a medicament delivery event;
determining whether or not the second wireless signal identifies a [device];
and responsive to determining that the second wireless signal identifies a [device] registered, determining that the [device] identified with the received second wireless signal was used by the user identified with the biometric information for causing the medicament delivery event.,
as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to associate a user to a medicament delivery device in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “receiving, registering, determining” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a system implemented by a data processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a processor, non-transitory data storage, and receiver that implement the identified abstract idea. The processor, non-transitory data storage, and receiver are not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional elements of a wireless communication device and medicament delivery device. The wireless communication device and medicament delivery device merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does 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 element of using a processor, non-transitory data storage, and receiver to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a wireless communication device and medicament delivery device were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. As such the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 16-18,20, 24-26,28 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 16, 24 merely describe(s) receiving wireless signals from a device, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 17, 25 merely describe(s) receiving wireless signals from a package, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 16-17,24-25 also includes the additional element of “a biometric sensor” which is analyzed the same as the “a wireless communication device” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 18, 26 merely describe(s) the biometric information, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 20, 28 merely describe(s) the wireless communication device, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al (US Publication No. 20210085868).
Regarding Claim 19
Lim teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a receiver, a first wireless signal identifying a medicament delivery device communicating a medicament delivery event [Lim at Para. 0082 (see Claim 15 for explanation)];
receiving, at the receiver, a second wireless signal identifying a wireless communication device [Lim at Para. 0109 teaches in some examples, the AMD 600 may establish a direct end-to-end data connection to a host computing system via a wireless wide area network (WAN); Lim at Para. 0159 teaches further, establishing the direct end-to-end data connection may include determining that the AMD 1402 is permitted to communicate with the computing system 1404 based at least in part on the device identifier];
determining whether or not the wireless communication device has been preregistered for a user [Lim at Para. 0095 teaches in some examples, the device identifier may be initially provided to the networked-computing environment prior to provisioning of the AMD 600 to the subject. For example, the device identifier may be initially provided to the networked-computing environment as part of a manufacturing process for manufacturing the AMD; Lim at Para. 0098 teaches in some embodiments, the AMD 600 may use a whitelist, or approved list, that identifies via a unique identifier (e.g., via an IP address, a MAC address, or a URL) one or more permitted cloud servers or computing systems of the cloud computing system 708 that the AMD 600 is permitted to access];
determining whether or not the wireless communication device has been preregistered for a user [Lim at Para. 0109 teaches in some examples, the AMD 600 may establish a direct end-to-end data connection to a host computing system via a wireless wide area network (WAN); Lim at Para. 0159 teaches further, establishing the direct end-to-end data connection may include determining that the AMD 1402 is permitted to communicate with the computing system 1404 based at least in part on the device identifier];
and responsive to determining that the wireless communication device has been preregistered for a user, determining that the medicament delivery device identified with by the received first wireless signal was used by the user for which the wireless communication device has been preregistered to cause the medicament delivery event [Lim at Para. 0086 (see Claim 15 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 20
Lim teach the method of claim 19,
Lim further teaches the wireless communication device being one of a smart phone, a tablet, a smart watch, and a wireless-communication tag [Lim at Para. 0070 teaches in FIG. 1B, the medicament pump 100 communicates with an external electronic device 108 (such as, for example, a smartphone) via a wireless data connection. At least some of the pump controls 106a and 106b can be manipulated via user interaction with user interface elements of the external electronic device 108].
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.
The Examiner notes that the rejection will reference the translated documents (attached) corresponding to any foreign documents recited in the rejection.
Claims 15-16, 18,23-24,26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lim et al (US Publication No. 20210085868) in view of Dahmani et al (US Publication No. 20190295707).
Regarding Claim 15
Lim teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a receiver, a first wireless signal comprising information identifying at least one medicament delivery device and biometric information identifying a user of said at least one medicament delivery device [Lim at Para. 0082 teaches FIG. 5A illustrates a three-dimensional (3D) view of an example ambulatory medical device (e.g., an ambulatory medicament delivery pump such as an insulin pump) 500 comprising a housing 502 with a wake button 506 and a touchscreen display 504. FIG. 5B is an illustration of a cross sectional view of the AMD 500 shown in FIG. 5A. In this example, all the electronic systems 508 are included inside the housing 502, for example, as a single integrated electronic board. The wake button 506 may be any type of button (e.g., capacitive, inductive, resistive, mechanical, etc.) that registers an input generated by user interaction with the wake button 506 to generate a wake signal. In some embodiments, the wake signal is generated by a sensor (e.g., a biometric sensor such as a fingerprint reader or a retinal scanner, an optical or RF proximity sensor, and the like). In various embodiments, the wake signal may be generated by user interaction with the touch screen display 504 or with an alphanumeric pad (not shown). In some examples, a wake signal may be generated based on facial recognition or other biometric indicia. In some examples, the wake signal may be generated by a wireless signal such as a signal generated by an RFID system or Bluetooth signals received from an electronic device or by detection of movement using one or more motion sensors such as an accelerometer (electronic device interpreted as receiver)];
receiving, at the receiver, a second wireless signal identifying a medicament delivery device communicating a medicament delivery event [Lim at Para. 0460 teaches the automated blood glucose control system may generate a dose control signal based on the determined therapy. This dose control signal may be supplied to a medicament pump, which may control delivery of the medicament (e.g., insulin) to the subject];
and responsive to determining that the second wireless signal identifies a medicament delivery device registered at the receiver, determining that the medicament delivery device identified by the second wireless signal was used by the user identified with the biometric information for causing the medicament delivery event [Lim at Para. 0086 teaches in some embodiments, the therapy delivery module 606 may comprise one or more infusion pumps configured to deliver one or more medicaments (e.g., insulin or glucagon) to a subject 627. In some examples, the medicaments may be stored in one or more medicament cartridges housed in the therapy module 606. In some examples, the therapy delivery module 606 may include electronic and mechanical components configured to control the infusion pumps based on the signals received from control and computing module 610 (e.g., via the signal processing module 604); Lim at Para. 0302 teaches he resumption condition may include the expiration of a time period (e.g., temporary suspension period), a command from a user (e.g., the subject), detection that the AMD devise satisfies a condition (e.g., that medicament has been refilled), that the condition of the subject meets certain criteria (e.g., the subject's blood glucose level drops below a threshold range or rises above a threshold range), or any other condition that may satisfy the reason for suspension of therapy or that overrides the request for suspension of therapy. For example, the drug delivery device may be configured to automatically resume drug delivery when a glucose threshold is reached or exceeded. This threshold could be set to 300 mg/dl for example. The resumption condition may include detection of an impending risk of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, or a hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia event. Further, the resumption condition may include a meal announcement, or an “exercise concluded announcement,” a motion sensing event, a pause of other administered medicament, a conclusion of an undefined suspension length (e.g., during cartridge change), a speed-based resumption event, a location-based resumption, a remote resumption in case of an emergency (e.g., commanded from caregiver admin software or clinician), or any other type of resumption event. In some cases, the resumption condition can include a combination of criteria.].
Lim does not teach registering, at the receiver, the user to the at least one medicament delivery device;
determining whether or not the second wireless signal identifies a medicament delivery device registered at the receiver;
Dahmani teaches registering, at the receiver, the user to the at least one medicament delivery device [Dahmani at Para. 0233 teaches associating, by the centralized system, the medicament assembly record with the patient identity.];
determining whether or not the second wireless signal identifies a medicament delivery device registered at the receiver [Dahmani at Para. 0013 teaches Further, the centralized system may be configured to receive information identifying a patient associated with the semi-reusable medicament assembly when the semi-reusable medicament assembly is dispensed, and associate the medicament assembly record with an identity of the patient];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine device of Lim with the registration of Dahmani with the motivation to improve medication adherence and medical outcomes.
Regarding Claim 16
Lim/Dahmani teach the method of claim 15,
Lim/Dahmani further teach the first wireless signal being received from a medicament delivery device equipped with a biometric sensor for extracting the biometric information identifying the user [Lim at Para. 0082 (see Claim 15 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 18
Lim/Dahmani teach the method of claim 15,
Lim/Dahmani further teach the biometric information being extracted from a fingerprint, iris, face or periocular feature of the user [Lim at Para. 0082 (see Claim 15 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 23
Lim teaches a computing system comprising:
receiving, at a receiver, a first wireless signal comprising information identifying at least one medicament delivery device and biometric information identifying a user of said at least one medicament delivery device [Lim at Para. 0082 (see Claim 15 for explanation)];
receiving, at the receiver, a second wireless signal identifying a medicament delivery device communicating a medicament delivery event [Lim at Para. 0460 (see Claim 15 for explanation)];
and responsive to determining that the second wireless signal identifies a medicament delivery device registered at the receiver, determining that the medicament delivery device identified with the second wireless signal was used by the user identified with the biometric information for causing the medicament delivery event [Lim at Para. 0086 (see Claim 15 for explanation)].
Lim does not teach at least one processor;
non-transitory data storage;
program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the at least one processor to cause the computer system to carry out operations including:
registering, at the receiver, the user to the at least one medicament delivery device;
determining whether or not the second wireless signal identifies a medicament delivery device registered at the receiver;
Dahmani teaches at least one processor [Dahmani at Para. 0044 teaches the processor 210 may be programmed with suitable processor-executable program instructions (e.g., machine-readable instructions and/or other suitable (e.g., higher-level) programming instructions) that may be stored in the memory 220 or another data storage associated with the processor 210];
non-transitory data storage [Dahmani at Para. 0063 teaches the memory 306 may be non-transitory computer-readable medium or media, and may be volatile or non-volatile type of data storage];
program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the at least one processor to cause the computer system to carry out operations including [Dahmani at Para. 0064 teaches the memory 306 may store program logic including program instructions (e.g., machine language instructions and/or other suitable (e.g., higher-level) programming instructions) executable by the processor(s) to carry out various functions of the centralized system 302 as described herein]:
registering, at the receiver, the user to the at least one medicament delivery device [Dahmani at Para. 0233 (see Claim 15 for explanation)];
determining whether or not the second wireless signal identifies a medicament delivery device registered at the receiver [Dahmani at Para. 0013 (see Claim 15 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine device of Lim with the registration of Dahmani with the motivation to improve medication adherence and medical outcomes.
Regarding Claim 24
Claim(s) 24 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 16, thus Claim(s) 24 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 16.
Regarding Claim 26
Claim(s) 26 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 18, thus Claim(s) 26 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 18.
Regarding Claim 27
Lim teaches a computing system comprising:
receiving, at a receiver, a first wireless signal identifying a medicament delivery device communicating a medicament delivery event [Lim at Para. 0082 (see Claim 15 for explanation)];
receiving, at the receiver, a second wireless signal identifying a wireless communication device [Lim at Para. 0109, 0159 (see Claim 19 for explanation)];
determining whether or not the wireless communication device has been preregistered for a user [Lim at Para. 0095, 0098 (see Claim 19 for explanation)];
and responsive to determining that the wireless communication device has been preregistered for a user, determining that the medicament delivery device identified by the first wireless signal was used by the user for which the wireless communication device has been preregistered to cause the medicament delivery event [Lim at Para. 0086 (see Claim 15 for explanation)].
Lim does not teach at least one processor;
non-transitory data storage;
program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the at least one processor to cause the computer system to carry out operations including:
Dahmani teaches at least one processor [Dahmani at Para. 0044 (see Claim 23for explanation)];
non-transitory data storage [Dahmani at Para. 0063 (see Claim 23 for explanation)];
program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the at least one processor to cause the computer system to carry out operations including [Dahmani at Para. 0064 (see Claim 23 for explanation)]:
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine device of Lim with the processor of Dahmani with the motivation to improve medication adherence and medical outcomes.
Regarding Claim 28
Claim(s) 28 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 20, thus Claim(s) 28 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 20.
Claims 17, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lim, Dahmani as applied to claim 15, 19, 23, 27 above, and further in view of DEMIROZER et al (Foreign Publication WO-2022043076-A1).
Regarding Claim 17
Lim/Dahmani teach the method of claim 15,
Lim/Dahmani does not teach the first wireless signal being received from a packaging accommodating a batch of medicament delivery devices, which packaging is equipped with a biometric sensor for extracting the biometric information identifying the user and a wireless transmitter configured to transmit the identifiers of the medicament delivery devices, and said biometric information.
DEMIROZER teaches the first wireless signal being received from a packaging accommodating a batch of medicament delivery devices [DEMIROZER at Page 7 Lines 1-3 teaches embodiments of the invention provide a medicament delivery device package assembly for storing one or more prefilled medicament delivery devices, e.g. injectors, inhalers or medical sprayers; DEMIROZER at Page 14 Lines 15-23 teaches the material of the storage unit may block or interfere with the data transmission by the communication unit; for example, refrigerators are commonly made with metal/ alloy, so when the medicament delivery device package assembly is placed inside a refrigerator, a wireless data transmission may be interfered by those metal/ alloy when the refrigerator door is closed. A better moment for the communication unit to wirelessly send out a signal is the door of the storage unit is in the open position. In this case, the communication unit will be triggered to transmit data when the opening movement of the door is detected by the motion sensor], which packaging is equipped with a biometric sensor for extracting the biometric information identifying the user and a wireless transmitter configured to transmit the identifiers of the medicament delivery devices, and said biometric information [DEMIROZER at Page 10 Lines 9-16 teaches the medicament delivery device package assembly may comprise a safety lock for locking the lid with the body. The safety lock can be electromagnetic, for example. In one example, the movable lid comprises a safety lock, e.g. a mechanical lock, an electromagnetic lock, a magnetic lock, and/ or an electrometrical lock. The safety lock can be locked and unlocked by a key mechanism using mechanical way, electronic way, and/or biological identification, such as a movement of a matching mechanical key, inputting of a set of code, fingerprint, and/ or facial identifying].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lim, Dahmani with the packaging of DEMIROZER with the motivation to better track scheduled dosages.
Regarding Claim 25
Claim(s) 25 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 17, thus Claim(s) 25 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 17.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the non-statutory matter rejection of Claims 21-22, the Applicant has cancelled the claims to overcome the basis of rejection
Regarding the rejection of Claims 15-20, 23-28, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
The Applicant's claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even if Applicant's claims were directed to an abstract idea under step 2A, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant's claims qualify as "significantly more" under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, as amended, provide an improvement to computer functionality. For the example, the claims provide a technique for solving limitations associated with medicament delivery devices.
As indicated above, multiple medicament delivery devices capable of wireless communication may lie in the vicinity of a single wireless receiver. For instance, several members of a single household may all use medicament delivery devices capable of wireless communication. Having multiple medicament delivery devices capable of wireless communication near each other could cause confusion when monitoring when each medicament delivery device is used, potentially attributing a medicament delivery event to the wrong person. This confusion could cause users to keep an inaccurate record of their dosage, which depending on each user's condition-may cause severe consequences. A system capable of associating individual users with specific medicament delivery devices may help avoid this confusion and improve monitoring of medicament delivery events. Importantly, the independent claims, as amended, explicitly recite the association of individual users with specific medicament delivery devices disclosed in Applicant's specification that results in improvements while monitoring usage of medicament delivery devices (e.g., claim 1, as amended, recites "registering, at the receiver, the user to the at least one medicament delivery device").
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. No evidence was provided to support statement.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computer is performing normal functions of receiving and performing analysis with data. There is nothing outside of generic computer functions recited in the claims. Furthermore, solving problems related to medicament delivery problems are not problems caused by the computer, nor do they improve the function of a computer.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not a technical problem caused by the computer or technological environment. With regard to Applicant’s hypothetical, the problem of a wrong medicament event is not solved by the computer because nothing in the claims stops someone from injecting themselves regardless of whether they are registered to that particular device.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of Claims 15-20, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the basis of rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 15-20, 23-28, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Lim does not teach “determining that the medicament delivery device identified with the received second wireless signal was used by the user identified with the biometric formation for causing the medicament delivery event.”.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific medicament delivery event is not defined, and is therefore given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is met by Lim where it recites the suspension and resumption of delivery as the medicament event. The claim is written in such a way that the Examiner interprets the user, already identified previously with the biometric data, inputting a command as causing the event, which is taught by Lim at Para. 0086 and Para. 0302.
Regarding the rejection of the amended limitations Claims 15-20, 23-28, the Examiner has considered the Applicant' s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Thower et al (US Publication No. 20200218817) discloses a method for medical device authorization includes registering an attempt by a first user to access a user interface of a medical device;
Toporek et al (US Publication No. 20210077735) discloses a dose tracking mechanism for a drug delivery device.
Sutherland et al (US Publication No. 10173020) discloses devices and methods for identification of medicament delivery devices.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, as necessitated by amendment. 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 extension fee 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 JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272 - 6773. 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.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights